[address-policy-wg] PA policy

* Tore Anderson

Totally appreciate and agree with the government use case, or other such orgs with multiple dispersed branches or end sites needing their own ISP connectivity, especially for orgs that are not an ISP. But these are all of the one entity, or legal affiliates within an umbrella company. Unfortunately policy that rightfully allowed these also permitted some opportunistic rogue LIRs to receive copious v4 space for End User networks that were/are completely unrelated to the LIR but for the subletting of internet number resources. 
I know of such LIRs now forcing unsuspecting long-term assignment End Users to return the space in order for the LIR to sell the parent allocation. While it was for these End User network requirements that the NCC originally approved the IPv4 resources to the LIR in the first place! Very ugly. 
End user's fault for not requesting PI or becoming an LIR, I know. Still ugly. 

Regarding aggregation Vs multiple routing entries for allocation usage efficiently, well it's a bit late for that argument. Nice King Knut reference Sascha ;) 

Btw fear not, the goal of this thread wasn't to initiate strict policy proposal to regurgitate potentially misused v4 allocations. That ship has sailed, RIPE depleted years ago. Important such topical discussions be aired though, as I know many out there have questions these days. 

Regards, 
James

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Havard Eidnes
Sent: 07 July 2015 21:06
To: apwg at c4inet.net
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [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