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

On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 05:03 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> People actually do want PI space for other things (like "internal
> VPN connections that must be numbered unique but need not be routed").
>

That is what I am trying to see. The more exceptions and the more fine 
tuning a policy has, usually the worse it is when it gets applied.
>
>>> (And they don't renumber, of course, but just keep the PI)
>> Well, yes, would anyone return it if it worked for them?
>
> No, and that's part of the problem.  If it can be avoided in the first
> place to have people announce multiple prefixes, then we should aim for
> that.
>

I agree. In general, policies that encourage people to distort reality 
or look for workarounds are not good policies. In those cases you have 
to go and fix the offending policy and try not to teak the workarounds.

So, can we enumerate 4 or 5 items that cover a wide range of cases 
where people asked for PI and see if the origin of the problem is with 
the PI policy or elsewhere?

Leo's earlier mail included a reference to a change in the minimum 
allocation size from a /20 to a /21 (8x /24). Is this likely to have an 
impact such that the pressure to use PI is going to be less?

Joao