[address-policy-wg] PA policy

> * Kennedy, James
>
>> I raised the question as I've heard several community members
>> complain, validly IMO, about some LIRs that have accumulated vast v4
>> PA allocations that are technically autonomous to the LIR. Seems
>> strange to have been allowed, especially considering the market value
>> on these resources now. 

The allocation of large PA blocks from the ancient (or not so
ancient) past is what one might call "water under the bridge".
What's done in this area is done, and can not easily be undone.

With that said:

If I've understood correctly, the "P" in "PA" (and "PI") is meant to
be more or less synonymous with ISP, not with a provider of LIR
services only.  This was so that the ISP could announce the whole
covering address space as a single route, thereby reducing the
amount of entropy we collectively have to carry on our backs as
ISPs.  If the ISP / PA block holder insists, and you as a customer
and current sub-PA-block holder wish to cancel the service with the
ISP, the ISP can insist that you cease using the PA addresses you
were assigned as a customer.

The converse is not true: if the PA-holding LIR lets you take your
sub-block with you, they can allow it, and I beleive that's what you
said as well, Tore.  I'm not sure that is the typical case, though(?)

Your example with a government or large organization which holds one
or more large PA block and which out of administrative convenience
("renumbering is so hard, even if I just have client hosts!") or for
other reasons doles out address blocks to widely distributed sub-
organizations, and where each sub-organization is free to choose its
own ISP to use will result in injection of more entropy into the
global routing system, as each individual sub-organization's route
will need to be carried globally, and there's no possibility for
route aggregation.  I'm hesitating a little to find an appropriate
characterization of what would happen if such pratices became very
widespread, but I'm sure it certainly isn't positive for the
sustainability of the network.

Regretfully, noone has come up with any sort of economic (the only
one which works...) dis-incentive countering such behaviour, so
we'll end up by muddling along.

BTW, this argument is address-family independent...

Regards,

- Håvard