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

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:56:14PM +0200, Per Heldal wrote:
>> I've re-read the proposal, and I do agree that RIPE should not
>> hand out blocks smaller than what is defined as the minimum assignment.
> 
> They don't.  The defined minimum assignment size for IPv4 PI is a /32.
> 
>> Handing out blocks smaller than what is permitted through general
>> filtering recommendations makes no sense. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Now there's the catch: who defines what is "permitted" on the Internet?
> 
> If we could get a clear document from the Internet Routing Police, we
> could tie the policy to that...

The trick here though is that IP addresses are not only used on the
Internet. Especially in the case of PI it is perfectly useful and IMHO a
valid request case to request address space for interconnecting
non-Internet connected resources. As such, a request that does not match
to those IRP rules (aka the perceived current of a minimum of a /24) are
definitely valid and should be accepted by RIPE.

Then again, there is always the assumption that something will at one
point appear on the Internets...

Greets,
 Jeroen

--
Btw:

$ whois routingpolice.net

No match for "ROUTINGPOLICE.NET".

For all those domain-grabbers :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090728/29d0394a/attachment.sig>