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

On Monday 08 May 2006 07:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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-)

To be routed one needs at least one relationship with an ISP (in whatever 
form). My organization has PI (and PA) space. The PI space used to be routed 
via DRA (UK) via a milnet to the US, later via NL-Net, later via UU-net and 
now via Surfnet. In all occasions we pay for the service to be routed. Now 
how our provider(s) arrange with their peers to get our blocks routed is 
their business but I assume there is some form of agreement that takes care 
of it.

So it is not like PI users just connect to the net for free. The fee be able 
to add routes is in what one pays to the connectivity provider. The use of PI 
space also implies that the PI holder can't just order a DSL from somewhere 
and get it routed. To get PI routed one needs a more serious contract (like 
we have) but that's ok because PI is part of a business continuity plan and 
one looks at the business case. The connectivity provider (generally an ISP) 
has to make sure all other parties are happy. That's the role of an ISP.

In my view, regardless if one pays for the right to use a PI block, the fact 
that a PI holder has one does not load it into the routing table. Being 
connected does. Being connected is not free and costs money and is provided 
by ISP's or other organizations that connect somehow to the core of the 
Internet.

[..]
-- 
Marc van Selm
NATO C3 Agency
CIS Division
E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)