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

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:36:21 +0200
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> 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?

You know, as well as I, that no-one does, but that common operational
practises puts a practical limit at /24. I would not work with
anything smaller, or recommend anyone else to do so. I'd take PA over 
PI</24 any day. That there is no formal "routing police" doesn't
prevent a lot of people from making their own rules. That is a natural
consequence of the fact that the internet is a collection of
interconnected private networks, which owners have sovereign rights to
decide how their resources is used. The "public" internet is an
illusion.

Wrt the policy in question, I support the view that handing out blocks
< /24 is in fact waste of addresses, as the usability of such block is
questionable. At the same time, I do not want to make it easier to get
a /24 than it already is. That is if the intent is to make anyone who
"qualify" for example for a /28 eligible for a /24. This is as I've
stated multiple times before a problem that should be solved elsewhere.

//per