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

* Gert Doering:

> Which is touching the core of the problem: 
>
>   "can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"?

Ideally, that would be someone who pays for this kind of service.  The
fewer prefixes there are, the more feasible this approach will be. 8-)

> LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do* allocate 
> for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and 
> even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee involved
> shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the holder
> and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block *does* 
> have some costs attached".

In principle, such an effect is desirable.  But I would be very
surprised if the majority of end users with IPv4 PI didn't pay a
monthly fee for non-mass-market Internet connectivity.  This means
that they actually need PI, or they don't care that much because the
price difference still isn't large enough.  In the latter case, a
rather significant fee is needed to turn global inconvenience into a
local one.