route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)

[cjw at remarque.org]

Mike,

I hesitate to participate in this discussion because it has
been beaten to death over and over again.  But since I am on
the ARIN Advisory Council and this is one of the things that
we are trying to deal with, I have some questions for you.

    >Announcing the entire internet as /24's just isn't scaleable
    
    There are legitimate needs to be able to fully route a /24 on occasion and
    to say, well that's just the say it is, makes companies lie so that they can
    get the /20 that will route.
    
How would you define exactly how to identify one of these organizations?
One of the issues being dealt with by ARIN and the other registries
is how to determine who has a legitimate need and who doesn't. Further
when we can determine who has a legitimate need, then we could actually
determine how many there might be and what the impact on the routing
table would be.  For example, ARIN would start seeing requests for
people like me who have a sizable network in their home and want
redundancy.  Should I get a globally routable /24?  My home network
is important.  (at least I think it is)  What if I need a /28?  Should
that be routed as well?  

    These are not necessarily small companies by annual revenues. They just
    don't have a need for more than a /24. The policies of the large vendors who
    insist on filtering, do more to serve the business objectives of those
    vendors, than they do to protect the scalability of the Internet.
    
Most of the folks I know who filter do it to keep their networks
working and for no other reason. 

Thanks for your input. 
---CJ