[ppml] Policy Revision Proposal

[Phil Howard]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:12:02PM -0600, Mury wrote:

| I understand your point with d), but I think it's important to honor the
| goal of keeping routing tables clean, and therefore respectfully disagree.

Then apparently the issue is a technical one involving the (lack of new)
routing technology that can handle this.  This list is about policy, so
that's not a topic here.  I fear policy is going to have to work hard to
compensate for routing that doesn't scale to meet the address space.

It's going to be hard to suggest any other policy to deal with a bad design
(e.g. the lack of scalable routing in IPv6).


| I don't understand your objections to c).  Why do you need to hand out IP
| space to others from a /48?  If you are handing out IP space the mirco
| allocation provisions wouldn't even apply to you.  You would be getting a
| /32.

That's just it.  I don't need to hand out _any_ IP space.  But I can't sign
certain agreements some customers insist on without a permanent IP space.
It puts me in a bad position relative to "the big boys".  Someone who can
justify /32 because they are handing out hundreds of /48's gets to run a
"side business" that needs a small but permanent address slice.

I have considered doing some hosting of things like dialup servers for no
purpose others than presenting justification for IPv4/19 so I can get a
permanent portable allocation.  Otherwise I have no need for more than
IPv4/24 for the forseeable future.

If my business had started long ago (but what I'm going to be doing really
had no market back then) I'd probably have one /24 in the 192 swamp.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------