[address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 08:56:35 CET 2014
Hello Tore, May I interpret your words this way: Policy making and routing are two very separated, distinct actions?! While I fully understand the attitude of the routing community, I would encourage people raise their voices against bad policy making. Thanks, Geza On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote: > * Erik Bais > > > - Assignments smaller than the minimal allocation size, can't be > > split into smaller assignments, but can be re-assigned as a complete > > assignment. > > > > My reasoning is that it would disallow cutting up small assignments into > > even smaller assignments. > > That is would be somewhat illogical IMHO. Assignments and allocations > are two different things. The minimum allocation size has never been > applied to assignments, so why start now? We've never had a minimum > assignment size, at least not in recent years. > > > The question that I have is, would the community prefer a transfer > > policy proposal for PI with or without the above stated rule or > > limitation in freedom in transfers of PI. > > Without. > > I am not at all concerned about the routing table here. There is nothing > in policy nor in the RIPE database software that prevents people from > adding /32 route objects and attempting to advertise them into the DFZ. > There are at the moment 3888 route objects in the database with that are > /25 or longer, but the routing community seem to be able to ignore them > just fine. I don't see how "nano-PI" would be any different, the routing > community won't have any difficulty ignoring those either. After all, a > router couldn't care less if a route is from an inetnum with status > "ASSIGNED PA" or "ASSIGNED PI". > > Or to put it another way, we don't need policy to forbid every bad idea > under the sun. Let the routing community decide how they want to deal > with this one. > > Tore > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140325/fef93c5f/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]