AddOn --- Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: a consensus, about what?

Hi!

As I can see, the main idea of these threads is large carriers trying to 
implement a kind of trust agreement policy (monopoly) that deny non-carriers 
(ideally small carriers too) to be the independent part of the Internet, but 
only their end-users. Like it is now in PSTN.

If the community accept that, your though will be denied too.

The main question is Internet is for carriers (' profit) or carriers is for 
Internet (community). What is the main thing?

> A thought just crossed my mind:
>
> those of you striving to deny slots in the routing tables to non-LIRs, what
> do you think about splitting a PA and announcing parts out of different
> AS'es ? This isn't really a de-aggregate, serves the 'address conservation'
> constraint but is utilizing routing table space. Wasn't the
> 'sub-allocation' type intended for this and must have had some consensus to
> become
> implemented ?
>
> Maybe there should be added a PA allocation rule that each PA has to be
> announced only out of one AS.
>
> No ? We can't do this ? Why not ? Be splitting PA's this way the LIR create
> a address space type that can be moved along very similar to PI, just
> without being handed out directly to the customer.
>
> Would be an idea:
> I split one of our PA into /24's and lend them to enterprise customers free
> for announcement via their favourite ISP charging a yearly fee (obvisously
> the fee only for administering the RIPE data, as charging for addresses
> isn't allowed.).
>
> Marcus
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>             Tropolys Rhein-Main GmbH
>
>       Network Engineering and Administration
>
>  Fon: +49-(0)6131/129343 | Fax: +49-(0)6131/129321
>       Mombacher Str. 40, 55122 Mainz, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>  AS15837 | AS8638 | MG3031-RIPE
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marcus Gerdon" <marcus.gerdon at mainz-kom.de>
> To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: a consensus, about what?

-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)