[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

I've ran across a couple of networks who filter on /23, in fact I did  
it myself for a while while we were waiting for an upgrade. So the /24  
is just as arbitrary as any other range.

I ain't gonna see this one fly, what people will accept for routing as  
their business and shouldn't influence allocation or assignment  
policy. In fact during last meeting there was quite some debate about  
the fact all references to routing and/or filtering policy should be  
removed from address policy documents.

RIPE and or RIPE NCC will never guarantee routabillity for any address  
range, adjusting the policy to allow a /24  just to get passed some  
filters implies you get routed.

This is a bad proposal, completely going into the wrong direction and  
I won't support it, it should have been dropped years ago instead of  
keeping it sleeping.

Grtx,

MarcoH

On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:

> Members,
>
> I'd like to re-open the discussion for http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html 
>  which is still pending approval.
>
> In the current IPv4 address policy, routability on the internet is  
> not a factor that is allowed to be taken into account when a PI  
> space is requested. Yet anything smaller then a /24 is pretty much  
> useless since most providers filter anything below /24 out.
>
> -- 
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Jeroen Wunnink,
> EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder
> systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl
>
> telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455              Postbus 48
> fax: +31 (035) 6838242                  3755 ZG Eemnes
>
> http://www.easyhosting.nl
> http://www.easycolocate.nl
>
>