[address-policy-wg] Policies interact

> Sidetracking: actually we tried that (added criteria for the first
> IPv4 allocation) - result?  People got 'me a handful of /24 PI networks,
> paying some small saving on the address space side with more pollution
> on the routing table size.  So we changed it back.

When we transition to IPv6, we lose any benefits of the savings
in IPv4 addresses, however, the penalty of pollution in the routing
table is multiplied.

Savings in IPv4 space, do not carry over into IPv6. That is why
we lose these savings. But the size of the routing table increases
by 4 times therefore requiring 4 times as much RAM and 4 times as
much time to send/receive full routes. No doubt one could apply
some weighting factors and conclude that the overall penalty is
multiplied by less than 4 times, however the fact is that the penalty
is greater.

Therefore, is it false economy to have policies which put IPv4
address space conservation higher on the agenda than routing
table size conservation?

Policies interact, including interaction between IPv4 and IPv6 policy.
With IPv6 we can afford to be generous.

--Michael Dillon