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

Nick Hilliard wrote:

>>It merely means difference of a small constant factor.
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Most ISPs I know of announce a large number of non-
> contiguous address blocks.  With ipv6, this will drop to just one or two
> in the short term;  longer term, it will grow, but not even nearly at
> the same rate as ipv4 allocations.

According to your favourite:

>　http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-bgp-review.pdf

each ISP announces, in average, about 8 blocks, which is the small
constant factor.

>>IPv4 routing table is already too large that its convergence is
>>prohibitively slow.
> 
> 
> Geoff Huston's talk about this at RIPE was rather interesting.  Yes, the
> routing table will grow.  But that's only part of the problem;

So, you have found the problem.

That's enough to answer the quesiton in your previous mail of:

	What's the problem here??
 
>>Not at all. If the end-user disappears, its entries in global routing
>>tables are tackled automatically.

> The prefix announcement disappears, but the space is lost to the
> available address pool forever (under current rules).

It's not a serious issue for IPv6 and no urgent response necessary,
though you said in your previous mail

	Problem #1 is a really serious issue and needs to be
	tackled urgently.

						Masataka Ohta