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

* Turchanyi Geza

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

Not as a general statement, although in this specific case I suppose you
could say that - the prefix length threshold of what's considered
routable globally or not simply isn't going to be decided by the RIPE
Address Policy Working Group, even if we pretend to make decision...

We could make a policy that demanded «every network operator in the RIPE
region MUST accept all routes up to and including /32s from all of their
peers and upstreams».

Or we could make a policy that stated «every network operator in the
RIPE region MUST reject all routes with prefix lengths longer than or
equal to the minimum allocation size of /22».

Neither would have any effect out in the real world; the operators would
continue to decide for themselves what they are willing to accept, just
as they do today. We might as well try to outlaw the moon.

That said, there are cases where a policy mandated minimum allocation
size makes perfect sense and have a positive impact on routing. This is
most apparent in IPv6, where every LIR is basically forced to accept a
absolutely ridiculous amount of addresses no matter their actual
perceived need. This prevents LIRs from underestimating their need (easy
if you're used to IPv4), asking for too small blocks, and as a result
having to return to the NCC for new and distinct allocations a few years
down the line. The same was true for IPv4 allocations too before
run-out, but to a lesser extent.

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

«If it ain't broken, don't fix it»

We don't currently have a minimum assignment size in policy (neither for
PI or PA), nor do we have a minimum size of route objects. It's not
broken. We don't need to fix it.

Tore