[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

On 15 Sep 2006, at 20:01, Gert Doering wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:58:38AM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:
>> . o O(and i really wonder why there's still no rant about global  
>> routing
>> table size increase by allowing routing issues to be PI-assignment
>> relevant..)
> Because it doesn't make a difference.
> It just means "people will no longer lie to the RIPE hostmasters".
> What I am really worried about is people getting "lots and lots" of  
> PI,
> and using multiple routing table slots, instead of getting a  
> reasonable
> chunk of addresses (however named), and announcing only *one* route.

There is a real risk that networks due to router resource  
constraints, who already filter on shorter-than-/24 prefixes will  
have to cope with any routing table growth by filtering on /23, /22,  
etc.

If we accept argument that we should, as a community, advocate no  
smaller PI assignments smaller than a /24 because of table  
filtration, what happens when the table grows to the size that  
operators start to filter on longer masks ?


Andy