[address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 08:34:47PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
> The problem here is that the extra route has a global cost for everyone.

Just as every LIR PA block is at the global cost of everyone.

<rant mode="sarcasm">

But of course, LIRs are "special" so that cost isn't questioned as long
as they pay their share to run the RIRs - /32, no questions asked
(single homed? no problem. polluting the DFZ with a lot of deaggs - hey,
not a biggie - connecting customers? sure, just throw them a /48).

It's just those pesky customers who insubordinately ask for their
independence and operational sanity just like the LIRs enjoy every day.

We should really search for more artificial reasons to deny them PI
space. We could e.g. ask for especially expensive routers deployed (and
certificate of first ownership incl. invoice!) - that will make them shy
away even more! Or we could ask for certified BGP engineers, just to
save the DFZ from more deaggregate pollution. At least they shelled out
money to buy themselves "in".

</rant>

No surprised that non-LIRs are so much underrepresented in RIR policy
processes. It's basically a hopeless position to take.

SCNR,
Daniel (having a bad day, tired of all the hypocrisy in that PI debate)

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0