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

Hi,

I can understand well your wish to glue client to your company with many 
different things, such as IP addresses (like non-portable phone numbers).

But be honest - routing table size is _NOT_ a technical problem. It is an 
puffed up management "problem" aimed to take out users' ability to choise 
connectivity provider(s).

Now routing table for IPv4 is near 190000 prefixes. And so what? Where is the 
problem?

> 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.

-- 
WBR, Maxim V. Tulyev
(MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)