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

Max,

On Sep 19, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
> David Conrad wrote:
>> Simply, PI to network topological leaves doesn't scale.
> I think it is not an argument for PI.

Right.  It is an argument against PI.

> You also can't scale PA when it
> ends. You only can allocate new one.

The difference, of course, is that PA (by definition) can be  
aggregated into a single announcement, thereby reducing the amount of  
information sloshing around the routing system.  It is true that if  
an ISP runs out of PA prefixes to assign to their customers that  
they'll need to get another one and that additional prefix will need  
to be PI, but that is a single prefix that aggregates all the  
customers numbered out of that prefix.  This is Routing Scalability 101.

> It is an argument for thinking before doing. Best way is to set up
> period of requesting, i.e. one company can do same kind of requests  
> for
> example once in two years. It makes a company think twice about  
> scaling
> ("do we requesting enough space for our grow?") and about conserving

Even if you can have a crystal ball that predicts your future  
addressing requirements for arbitrary amounts of time into the  
future, this still has a 1:1 ratio of end user organization to  
routing prefix and every flap of that prefix has to get propagated  
globally.

This simply doesn't scale.

Rgds,
-drc