[address-policy-wg] PA policy

> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:10:20PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>>global routing system, as each individual sub-organization's route
>>will need to be carried globally, and there's no possibility for
>>route aggregation.  I'm hesitating a little to find an appropriate
>>characterization of what would happen if such pratices became very
>>widespread, but I'm sure it certainly isn't positive for the
>>sustainability of the network.
>>
>>Regretfully, noone has come up with any sort of economic (the only
>>one which works...) dis-incentive countering such behaviour, so
>>we'll end up by muddling along.
>
> In the context of global IPv4 expiration, RIPE policy can't
> prevent de-aggregation down to /24 (or longer) any more than King
> Knut was able to order the tide back out.

I know, but the perspective needed to be put forward.

>>BTW, this argument is address-family independent...
>
> ripe-641 strongly discourages ipv6 de-aggregation (and there is no
> good argument for it either) but the sheer potential size of the
> routing table will become a problem at some stage. That will have to
> be solved eventually but that is not likely to be
> on this ML.. ;)

Yup.

Regards,

- Håvard