Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

  > Peter Galbavy <peter at demon.net> writes:
  > Hierarchical routeing is a flawed paradigm as well. CIDR is even more
  > flawed, but it works at the moment. 

Thanks for amitting at least that much ;-).
Would you care to share your thoughts on less flawed paradigms
that will work with current or near-future kit ({hard,firm,soft}ware for
the non-british)?

  > CIDR really only works if the
  > block allocated are actually routed geographically. 

Yes, CIDR works if addresses are allocated *somewhat* topologically.

  > As a provider
  > our primary Internet links outside of the UK are all the the USA.
  > We, however, *have* to come to RIPE for "European" address space.

The continental component in address space allocation is pure policy and
has little to do with CIDR.  The policy only seems unreasonable when
considering only the issue you raise. 

Personally I believe that even this issue is irrelevant for providers of
the size of Demon.  It makes no difference where you get a /16 from. 

The real issues here are ones of control and attribution of cost.

  > I cannot accept that we have to >beg< RIPE like a good little provider
  > for address space that should be allocated to us from the USA anyway.

I know that you object against allocation and assignments policies we 
apply to you as to any other local registry (provider) we serve. 
Yet the particular policies you object to, are the ones set by IANA
and applicable globally.  You mistakenly assume that these policies 
would not be applied if you were dealing with the InterNIC. 

  > I will be interested to see how the RIPE actually works (and not just
  > listening to Daniel dictate policy by e-mail) when I go to my first RIPE
  > meeting next week. So far it seems like a bureaucracy that is entirely
  > self perpetuating and self interested without consider what the people
  > who pay for its very existance want. sigh. Just like an unelected
  > government in fact.

Thank you for the public ad hominem. :-(.  I consider this bad style.
I suggest you examine my personal track record more closely
before repeating such attacks.

RIPE is not a bureaucrazy. It is about as lightweight as an organisation
can get.

The RIPE NCC is also not a bureaucrazy.  I can assure you that
*everyone* here would rather do *any* of the other activities that we
are supposed to do but registration services.  Yet this job has to be
done and done fairly.  We also consider *very carefully* what the people
that pay for our very existance want.  We have well documented and
working meachanisms for that.  We have a contributors committee where each
local registry in good standing (yourselves incluided) is represented 
which decides on our activites and charges. We have RIPE to direct our 
activities technically.  All these processes are open and well documented.
I am quite happy that you plan to get involved in these processes.

What we do *not* do is consider *individual* interests of some over 
the ones of others.  If we would do that we would eliminate our 
"raison d'etre". 

If you do not like the RIPE NCC model, consider the alternatives.
You seem to be keen to have the US government set the policies.
Or maybe you want governmental regulation closer to home?


  > I think the hierarchical routeing is one step *worse* than the above.
  > The address *defines* the route the packets take ? What about the real,
  > live multi-interconnect, multi-homed Internet we use ? 

You have hit the nail on the head. 
There are conflicting goals here and engineering needs to be done.

  > Maybe I have
  > misunderstood the way IPv6 addressing works...

No you have not.  IPv6 routing basically is IPv4 routing with 
biger addresses.  Read the archives for proposals like PIP
enabling really interesting routing architectures and why they
didn't make it.

Daniel