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

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:19:18AM +0200, Marc van Selm wrote:
> 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....

This is actually what I see as the major point in the "PI policy" - figure
out who really "needs" it -- and I can agree that there are many networks
that would qualify, "being large enough, competent enough, and important[1]
enough".

Speaking as a network operator (not as WG co-chair) I would be fairly
unhappy with a PI policy that permits "about anyone" to get PI - because
PI is very unbalanced regarding "who benefits, and who pays for it".

[1] yes, "important enough" is very difficult to measure.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  92315

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234