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

Roger Jorgensen 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. :-)

> 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.

Doing so is as bad as frequency band auction in Europe.

So, let the number of possible tier 1s larger.

However, so large number of ASes means so slow convergence time
of BGP, which is already unacceptable (though some of you might
think the Internet can not be used for mission critical purposes
that minutes or tens of minutes of convergence time is fine) with
IPv4 Internet today.

Thus, my suggestion in <draft-ohta-multihomed-isps-00.txt> WAS:

   The proper number of TLAs, it seems to the author, should be
   somewhere between 1024 and 8192.

						Masataka Ohta