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

* Keith.Nolan at premiereglobal.ie (Nolan, Keith) [Fri 17 Jul 2009, 13:06 CEST]:
>I believe the proposal has great merit and needs further discussion, and 
>is directly related to my email on the 12th July.
>
>
>"The other issue with suggesting that we use PI Space instead of PA
>Space where we will not be in a position to aggregate is the PI
>Assignment which would be approved would be less than a /24 (as we don't
>need 128 addresses for Multi-homed BGP Peering), therefore wouldn't be
>routable on the Internet (Policy proposal 2006-05 refers to this issue
>and suggests the smallest PI Space should be /24) So the only way to
>implement Multi-Homed BGP Routing from Multiple locations which don't
>need a full /24 network is to become a LIR and create smaller /25 or /26
>inetnum's with larger /24 route objects from your PA Space. And since
>this is a workaround, just like a company stretching the truth about
>their IP requirements when applying for a PI Space to get a full /24,
>surely a LIR should be allowed to create inetnum's for a /24 when they
>also need to create a /24 route object."
>
>And while all transits may not route a /24 IP Range, the Tier1 transits 
>we are paying for transit do route /24 networks, but are filtering 
>anything smaller.

The RIPE NCC hands out addresses based on a need for addresses, not on 
a need to satisfy other parties' policies.  This is a good thing and it 
should stay that way.


	-- Niels.

-- 
<BitKat> zo weten we nog steeds niet of de steganosaurus wel echt bestaan heeft