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

Hi,

On 25/03/14 10:57, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:27:54AM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote:
>> I, personally, would put the /24 limit in policy. Anything lower than a
>> /24 can no longer be split by the RIPE NCC and must be transferred in
>> one block.
> Why?
First of all, because the other RIRs (APNIC&ARIN) also have a /24 limit 
for Inter-RIR transfers and I do hope that our region will eventually 
have an Inter-RIR transfer policy compatible with theirs .. so, for 
consistency with the others.

Secondly, because most of the routing is done by filtering at the /24 
level and even though not all the IPv4 space is used on the internet and 
publicly advertised, it seems to be the limit already adopted by most of 
the ISPs.

Thirdly, setting up reverse dns for blocks lower than /24 requires that 
any minor changes for reverse dns would need to involve the RIPE NCC.

Lastly, allowing any level of fragmentation could lead to an exploding 
IPv4 routing table (now at almost 500k routes). I'm not saying that 
adding an (arbitrary) transfer limit like the /24 would stop the routing 
table growth.

There might be other reasons as well.. It's just a feeling that limiting 
at /24 is the right thing to do. On the other hand, while writing this 
e-mail I've been having second thoughts on each of the paragraphs and 
reasons :-)

cheers,
elvis