[address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy

Hello Tore,

May I interpret your words this way: Policy making and routing are two very
separated, distinct actions?!

While I fully understand the attitude of the routing community, I would
encourage people raise their voices against bad policy making.

Thanks,

Geza



On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

> * Erik Bais
>
> > -        Assignments smaller than the minimal allocation size, can't be
> > split into smaller assignments, but can be re-assigned as a complete
> > assignment.
> >
> > My reasoning is that it would disallow cutting up small assignments into
> > even smaller assignments.
>
> That is would be somewhat illogical IMHO. Assignments and allocations
> are two different things. The minimum allocation size has never been
> applied to assignments, so why start now? We've never had a minimum
> assignment size, at least not in recent years.
>
> > The question that I have is, would the community prefer a transfer
> > policy proposal for PI with or without the above stated rule or
> > limitation in freedom in transfers of PI.
>
> Without.
>
> I am not at all concerned about the routing table here. There is nothing
> in policy nor in the RIPE database software that prevents people from
> adding /32 route objects and attempting to advertise them into the DFZ.
> There are at the moment 3888 route objects in the database with that are
> /25 or longer, but the routing community seem to be able to ignore them
> just fine. I don't see how "nano-PI" would be any different, the routing
> community won't have any difficulty ignoring those either. After all, a
> router couldn't care less if a route is from an inetnum with status
> "ASSIGNED PA" or "ASSIGNED PI".
>
> Or to put it another way, we don't need policy to forbid every bad idea
> under the sun. Let the routing community decide how they want to deal
> with this one.
>
> Tore
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140325/fef93c5f/attachment.html>