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

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:40:35AM +0200, Marc van Selm wrote:
> > 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".
> 
> True you have a good point here that is worth exploring.
> 
> So how do we seperate then the "about anyone" from "those that need". 

Can't say.

> I personally do not think the community should judge than one has a need and 
> try to cast that in stone in some form of policy. But one could demand a 
> sound justication in the request for PI that describes why PI is 
> vital/important. This is to be judged by the RIR. Would adjusting the policy 
> in that direction make sense? I know that this will take resourses of the RIR 
> but I think it is fair that the requester should pay for that.

I understand what you're aiming for, but the problem is - the RIRs system
doesn't work that way.  

The RIRs enforce the policy that the community (*we*) agree upon.

Consider the RIRs "the executive arm of the community will" - so we need
to provide clear guidance to the RIRs on "what's ok" and "what's not ok"
- otherwise the hostmasters need to make up rules, and people will find
themselves quite surprised at the outcome "now *that* is not what we
imagined".

Specifically in this case: the RIRs don't look at our routes, don't
feel the pain of "too many routes", can't decide on "what will ISPs 
route?", and so on.

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