[address-policy-wg] Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities

Marc van Selm wrote:

As a person who deeply interacted with IETF multihoming issues,
I can understand you.

> 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.

Exactly. To the Internet, yahoo and google, for example, are a lot
more important and generate a lot more traffic than some tier 1
ISP.

However, it is also true that PI space is evil to explode routing
tables.

So, the only fair solution is to allow anyone qualify as an ISP and
make ISP addresses dependent to upper layer ISP addresses. And, let
major ISPs chances to get PI space through auction or other fair
methods.

If PI space MUST be scares, let it be scares even for ISPs.

It should be noted that even though I wrote an ID for multi6 WG
that BGP-style policy control works even for ISPs with non-PI
addresses, I was never given any chance of discussion by the
WG chairs, Brian and Kurt, at that time.

IMHO, at least 1000 ISPs should be allowed to have the top level
PI addresses.

If renumbering is so painful and fairness is still required, even
top level ISPs with PI space should also be forced renumbering.

						Masataka Ohta