[address-policy-wg] The flexibility of IPv4 routing

* Jeroen Massar:

> On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 20:53 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> [ .. story about routing .. ]
>> Anyway, I wish you guys could bring this kind of flexibility to the
>> IPv6 world. 8-)
>
> Too bad a lot of people seem to mix up
>   Address Space
> with
>   Routing Slots.
>
> The RIR's are for the first, not the latter (yet).

For IPv4, there are prefix filtering guidelines, and the RIR
assignments are compatible with them.  Otherwise, you'd end up with PI
space (or even provider allocations) which are not globally reachable
to a significant degree.  So the two concepts are not entirely
separated -- and one stated goal for IPv6 is to mesh them together
("better aggregation").

> RIPE and all the other RIR's assign/allocate _Address Space_ to their
> clients based on their need. How/if that _Address Space_ is actually
> _Routed_ is not of any concern to the RIR's, that is the task of the one
> who received the _Address Space_ to make it be like they require it.

I wonder how one would get along with a /23 PI in 62/8. 8->

> But that is nearly impossible fortunately unless some big ISP's put
> their hands together and force all you little folks out of the
> routing tables.

See, in the IPv6 world as envisioned by you (and others, of course),
these little folks are called "waste" -- see <439442BE.2010509 at unfix.org>.