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

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:16:23PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > If renumbering is so painful and fairness is still required, even
> > top level ISPs with PI space should also be forced renumbering.
> Very good point. Actually, only true "tier 1" ISPs (those with no
> default routing and all external connections being either peers or
> customers... every ISP tech will understand what I mean, but this
> definition hair can be spliced infinitely) really _need_ PI. ALL others
> can use PA. This would bring the DFZ down to a very small 2-figure count
> of routes. :-)
<snip>

Combine this with geoip one way or another and we have something that 
should solve all multihoming/PI problems as I see it...  But do we really 
want to put all our routes in the hand of a very few ISP's? That's the 
only problem.

Another way of doing this, "tier 1" within a RIR justify a PI allocation?



-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              |
roger at jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------