On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:36:21 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:56:14PM +0200, Per Heldal wrote:
I've re-read the proposal, and I do agree that RIPE should not hand out blocks smaller than what is defined as the minimum assignment.
They don't. The defined minimum assignment size for IPv4 PI is a /32.
Handing out blocks smaller than what is permitted through general filtering recommendations makes no sense. Sorry for the confusion.
Now there's the catch: who defines what is "permitted" on the Internet?
You know, as well as I, that no-one does, but that common operational practises puts a practical limit at /24. I would not work with anything smaller, or recommend anyone else to do so. I'd take PA over PI</24 any day. That there is no formal "routing police" doesn't prevent a lot of people from making their own rules. That is a natural consequence of the fact that the internet is a collection of interconnected private networks, which owners have sovereign rights to decide how their resources is used. The "public" internet is an illusion. Wrt the policy in question, I support the view that handing out blocks < /24 is in fact waste of addresses, as the usability of such block is questionable. At the same time, I do not want to make it easier to get a /24 than it already is. That is if the intent is to make anyone who "qualify" for example for a /28 eligible for a /24. This is as I've stated multiple times before a problem that should be solved elsewhere. //per