[address-policy-wg] Summary of the PI Task Force's recent discussions

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:43:15PM +0200, Christian Rasmussen wrote:
> I do not see the reason for using PI space if you're an ISP intending to
> become LIR, this means you will need to renumber when you get your PA
> allocation no matter if you use PA or PI, so why not just get a PA
> assignment from your provider until you can justify the /21?

That's what I thought people would do.  But they don't.  They want to
be "independent", and so they go for PI, instead for a suballocation
from one of their upstreams.

(And they don't renumber, of course, but just keep the PI)

> Marcus Ruchti says that the majority of the ISPs will not announce PA space
> from another AS, does this include more specific announcements? 

I just disagree with that statement.  PA-based multihoming is a valid
approach to solve certain classes of problems.  If some ISPs refuse
to support this (because it creates more work for their NOC or 
whatever reason...), the market place has alternatives...

[..]
> A very peculiar thing regarding policy, a customer of ours applied for a PA
> block but could not justify a /20 (a year ago), BUT, when we applied on
> their behalf for PA space (ours) we were allowed to assign them a /20....! I
> was then told that as they had now been assigned a /20 they would be allowed
> to become LIR...! Hopefully this was a misunderstanding, if not, I think
> this part of the policy might need a few changes..

Changing this is part of Leo's proposal :-)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  56535  (56318)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299