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

Gert,

On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 02:05 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

> 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.

 From an end user (enterprise) point of view, what is wrong with trying 
to minimise the pain of changing ISPs (renumbering)?

On the other hand, it seems a waste of time and resources for all 
involved to give out blocks of size less than the minimum observed to 
be routed on the Internet. I know the registries can not guarantee 
routing of anything on the network but that does not mean the 
registries can not follow 'best common practice' as seen on the net, 
and I think everyone agrees that any prefix longer than a /24 doesn't 
make it past your border routers.

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

Well, yes, would anyone return it if it worked for them?

Joao