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

On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 20:12 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> On 1 maj 2006, at 17.43, Gert Doering wrote:
> [..]
> I actually agree with Gert. If we for a moment ignores who has the  
> right to a slot in the routing table, I think the entire notion of PI  
> should be abandoned as we have it today. I want holders of address  
> space to have a recurring contact with the RIRs to make sure contact  
> data is accurate and the holder still exists. I further think that  
> all address-space holders should be subject to the same rules. Now,  
> changing the rules for what is already out there does not seem  
> doable, but at least we should change for the future. If PA space  
> policy is broken, let's fix that.

PA is what it says: Provider Address space, thus address space for
end-users provided by their provider. These get >/32+

PI is provider independent, and thus for endsites, typically /48's,
maybe upto a /44 or so.

I would keep them seperate names because of this. Though one could also
merge them. The thing is that they will, at some point, pop up both in
the routing tables, assuming no other solution arrives, and they are
both based on the amount of address space usage. Having the seperate
might later on easily allow them to be seperated.

> As for who have a right to a slot in my routing table, I think a  
> minimum requirement is that they can be bothered to fulfil the duties  
> as an LIR. If they can't be bothered with that, I can't be bothered  
> to carry their route. So, let's move to a discussion on who should be  
> able to get PA space....

Being LIR makes at least sure that somebody (or a consultant) at the
organisation has some RIR clue and most likely also some routing clue.
This is already a reasonable financial and work-load barrier.

The people who decide on that one gets an entry in the routing table are
the folks who accept the route. Not the community. Though one could set
a sort of default community policy or so. The IPv4 /24-/32 filtering is
not a carved in stone standard either but most ISP's are doing it
anyway.

> I think being an LIR is a minimum requirement, that includes paying  
> the associated fees.

Ack. And if you can't pay the fees or pay a LIR then you most likely
can't pay for proper hardware and maintainance either ;)

>  The 200 rule is questionable to me, it's  
> arbitrary and more or less impossible to enforce.

The PA 200 is currently more a stopper for very small sites of getting
PA space in a /32 chunk which they will never use.

>  The demand that the  
> space actually be used on the public routable Internet seems good if  
> we could define this clearly.

That would be COMPLETELY silly. It's address space, no routability is
guaranteed and then you require it to be routed onto the internet?
What do you want, people to announce their space and then blackhole it?
ISP's request address space, for what they use it is their right. As
long as they actually use the space they requested of course.

>  Leo told me that the NCC receives  
> approx ~1400 requests a year for IPv4 PI space. I wonder how much of  
> that is going to ISPs becuase it's "cheaper" than PA space...which is  
> a claim that is hard to quantify.

PI is for folks wanting to be independent. Independency is most of the
time a bit more expensive.

Thus IMHO in very short:
- PA policy is for Providers, these provide access to endsites.
- PI policy is for Endsites.

Pricing should be LIR-fee + annual renenewal depending on the size of
the space received.

That said RIR's don't say who gets a slot in the routing space and
policy should not forbid people getting address space, if it is meant
for the internet or for other use. As long as an entity can show the
demand for the amount of requested address space and is willing to pay
the price they should be able to get it.

The routability factor they can guarantee by being cool enough and
persuading other ISP's to accept their announcements. Currently (peeing
at GRH) that means if you have a /48 it will simply work(tm). This might
change over the coming years though, solutions will come... also see my
longer message about address space & routing slots on ppml at arin...

My couple of rappen...

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20060502/f64760e8/attachment.sig>