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

On Thursday 20 April 2006 15:48, 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...

Sorry I can't agree with you there. Organizations that really need this are 
generally very professional (ok not always but they they can hire a 
professional for them) and many times much larger than some ISPs. I think it 
is unfair to say that a non-ISP business is per definition not able to handle 
routing networks. I have just seen the 2nd fully uncordinated, but promissed 
to be smooth, transition of network connectivity by a large ISP in NL so I 
guess we all make mistakes. Could we leave emotions and kingdoms out of the 
discussion and focus on the real issue of a large network that happens not to 
be an ISP that needs solid connectivity to the net and has a large world-wide 
internal network managed by professionals....

Best regards, Marc
-- 

                -- This mail is personal --
All statements in this mail are made from my own personal
perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's
opinions or policies.