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

> It's nothing to do with your LIR.  You can only do this if your
> secondary upstream agrees to it.  Your LIR can shout and jump up and
> down and tell you not to do this, but they can't stop their competitor
> from leaking a prefix which they really shouldn't.
> 
> Fortunately, most ISPs won't do this sort of thing.

Which is unfortunate. Because if scaling of the global routing
table is really as big of an issue as some people claim, then
the above scenario defines a BEST PRACTICE for multihoming
without global impact.

But, as I said in my last message, without a globally
agreed definition of the problem and a globally agreed
way forward to solving it, any action that RIPE takes to
limit growth of the global routing table is just penalizing
European businesses for no net benefit.

PI assignments are a good thing because they help get
organizations online. When an organization needs this kind
of address range, RIPE should be ready to give it to them.
In the end, all assignments and allocations are subject to
technical justifications based on RFC 2050.

--Michael Dillon
P.S. I happen to believe that there are issues with scaling the
global routing table but I believe that it is better to solve
those issues directly, and not indirectly through RIR policies.
A direct solution can only come from a direct discussion, not
random complaints in various RIR address policy forums.