[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

Hi Pekka. Totally agree with you there.
At the moment as we have PI with IPv4, and I'll guess there will be
lot's of fuzz dropping It.
On the other hand. If PI allocations were no more, then the same people
you nag about here would try to become their own ASN:s.
And the percentage of peers running on cheap 'o pc-boxes would quite
possibly increase.
Resulting in that the problem with flapping routes would probably
remain, or even get worse.

So the problem is really. How do we regulate PI to only be an accepted
solution for extreme cases?
And still have a fair policy to those who really needs this feature.


Best regards.

--Dennis Lundström
  GippNET







Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't support PI space to end-sites.  We have to get rid of the
> notion that a random end-site has any business whatsoever in mucking
> with the global routing tables, either by making it much larger than
> need be or by polluting it with needless dynamicity.
>
> Example of the latter: deploying inbound traffic engineering
> adjustment solutions which result in thousands of daily flaps in the
> advertisements, as shown by Huston's analysis.
>
> We have way too much trouble with clueless ISPs to also add (or
> continue to add) end-sites to the mix...
>
> ....
>
> Now, from practical point of view, it seems there is strong "need" for
> PI, and it might be a PI policy of some kind might actually get through.
>
> If so, the policy should be such that it minimizes the bad effects of
> PI and encourages people to use other solutions if those are viable
> for them (unfortunately, the only way to achieve that appears to be
> $$$$), in particular (in the rough order of importance):
>
>  1. Each assignment must be accompanied by a recurring fee (at least
> 1000-2000 USD/EUR a year, preferably 5000+).  This is peanuts
> (compared to other costs) to anyone who actually needs this
> multihoming solution.  However, this ensures at least some minimum
> usage barrier ("those who don't really need this can use different
> multihoming solutions"), and recovery of the resources back to RIR
> after the company has gone bankrupt or no longer needs the addresses.
> If you don't know where to put the extra money, donate it to ISOC or
> something.
>
>  2. one-size-fits-all assignments, period.  You get a /48 or /32 (I
> don't have much preference here), but you must not be able to justify
> for larger space.  This is to avoid the organization from getting a
> larger block and chopping it into smaller pieces and polluting the
> global routing table with more specifics which would get past prefix
> length filters.
>
>  3. assignments from a separate address block, set aside for PI.  To
> ease strict "assignment-size only" filtering of these blocks.
>