Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

["Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" Woeber@localhost]

Per Heldal wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:25 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
> 
>>PDP Number: 2006-05
>>PI Assignment Size
>>
>>
>>Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>A new RIPE Policy has been proposed and is now available for
>>discussion.
>>
>>This proposal suggests to have the minimum assignment size for PI
>>assignments to be a /24 when routing is a major issue for a
>>multihoming End User.

I still think that proposal is a completely inappropriate approach to
take volatile(1) routing configuration criteria as (major) input for
manufacturing address assignment policies.

(1) volatile in the sense that
 a) (change in) filtering behaviour of ISPs is not consistent, nor under
    the control of the body having to agree on addressing policy, and
 b) as has been pointed out already, this behaviour might change "any
    time", rendering the policy broken again.

> When should RIRs allocate v4 PI-blocks so small they won't be globally
> accepted? Such would in reality become small "private" blocks. For v6
> the discussion is still open wrt the allocation of private (unannuced)
> addresses, but for v4 we should stick to rfc1918 and ask those who don't
> qualify for an allocation big enough to pursue de-aggregated PA-space
> which at least will be routed through its wider aggregate.
> 
> The wording in the policy should instead reflect the need for
> consistence between the minimum size of allocated blocks and common
> filtering recommendations for the related IANA container-block (/8).
> 
> 
> //per

Another aspect of this proposal is that it would brake the equal opportunity
approch opposite PA-Space - unless we raise the minimum block size for PA-
assignments to /24 or whatever, too.

Wilfried.