Re: Changes to PI Policy?
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:11:19 +0200
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Denesh Bhabuta wrote:
> > The concept of PI space is definitely not broken. There is a
> The concept is not broken - the policy is - and it is the policy (and the
> associated assignment policy) that needs fixing.
Well, my statement was meant to spur discussion, which it does.
The thing that's broken about (routeable) PI is that it brings benefit and
independence to the end user, but puts the costs for it on everybody else,
by forcing another route into the global table.
I can see the need for some specific uses of PI:
- DNS root servers that can't be renumbered without changing configuration
on ALL client name servers out there
- internal VPN links between companies that need to be unique, but
are not meant to be visible globally
For "hook up to your ISP" addresses, I see PI as a failure of the past. It
doesn't scale. No matter what assignment policy you devise, you will either
collide with PA policy ("what, I can't get a /24 PA? Then get me a /24 PI!")
or with routing ("what, I can't get the /29 PI routed? What good is it?").
But maybe someone more clever than I can come up with a PI policy that
will scale, will not be unfair to some potential users, and will not
collide with PA policy or global routing.
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 58512 (58485)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299