Re: PI Policy Task Force: dead?
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:12:42 +0200
Hi,
coming back to this:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 06:28:17PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> > I still fail to see an example of something that is:
> >
> > - smaller than a /24
> > - not a root name server
> > - but needs PI space
[..]
>
> Ok, TLD servers are a bad example, not because I think they do not need
> portable space,
*Why* do they need portable space?
> but because the problem with changing glue-records are
> ore administrivia than anything else.
Yep. If the process of inserting glue records is broken, please don't
break the PI policy to get around this.
> As I am currently working for a
> IXP, getting address space is a problem. And no, IXPs don't always have
> a clear upstream provider. And I would not like to have to get one just
> to sort this out.
I would agree that an IXP peering mesh makes sense (which is why they
[plus the DNS root] are about the only thing that is admittedly "special"
in the IPv6 policy).
But then, an IXP peering mesh is usually big enough to warrant a /24 or
more.
If they are *so* small that a /28 would suffice, it's usually not overly
"impartial" or "neutral" anyway (so could use upstream space).
As for the announcement of the IXP mesh - that's an open issue whether
this is desireable or not. 200-odd IXPs round the world should not do
much harm anyway.
[..]
> The TLD server issue a side, my main problem is that we have a policy
> that says we should hand out useless addresses.
Define "useless"? People might want to use PI space for VPN connections
and actually do not *want* them to be visible globally.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
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
