[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

 where is the "global" routing table defined?  is that a universally
 agreed on definition?  answeringthese questions will help answer
 your questions.

--bill


On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:43:16PM -0400, Jason Schiller wrote:
> Stacy, Bill, 
> 
> Thanks, that is good feed back.  The authors of 2006-2 agreed to take out
> that text in the second attempt, since "ARIN does not set routing policy"
> 
> But that still leaves part of the question unanswered.  Is it worth noting
> that the intent is that this micro-allocation for critical infrastructure
> is not intended to be advertised to the global routing table (without
> trying to set routing policy)?  
> 
> There seems to be some people that can more easliy adopt this policy given
> that in theory there should be no impact on the global routing
> table.  There is one set of conditions that allow you to qualify for this
> space, and those conditions prevent you from routing the micro-allocation
> as an aggregate, thus the routes will never get outside of your routing
> domain.  
> 
> Just wondering if people find value in that as part of the policy, or is
> clearly understood?
> 
> __Jason
> 
> 
> ==========================================================================
> Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
> Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
> Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
> UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com
> 
> The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
> it increases traffic on the Internet.
> 
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Stacy Taylor wrote:
> 
> > Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:12:32 -0700
> > From: Stacy Taylor <ipgoddess at gmail.com>
> > To: "bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com" <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com>
> > Cc: Jason Schiller <jason.schiller at mci.com>, ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Re: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
> > 
> > I likewise think that language should not be in the policy.  ARIN AC
> > is as we speak in the process of looking at the NRPM with the possible
> > intention to take out any operational recommendations.
> > Let's not put in what we'll likely wind up taking out down the road.
> > :)
> > Stacy
> > 
> > On 8/23/06, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:43:00PM -0400, Jason Schiller wrote:
> > > (quoting unnamed sources)
> > > >
> > > > This micro-allocation MUST not be routed.  If an organization is found to
> > > > be routing their micro-allocation for internal infrastructure they must
> > > > either correct this mistake or surrender thier micro-allocation for
> > > > internal infrastructure.
> > > >
> > >
> > >         humph... routed -where-?
> > >         prefixes not routed are effective only in the single broadcast domain
> > >         where they are used.  me thinks this "requirement" is overly broad
> > >         and screams for the creation of the "routing police".  e.g.
> > >         Geoff and the RIB/FIBettes. eh?
> > >
> > >         i'm in favor of -NOT- having this language.
> > >
> > > --bill
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PPML mailing list
> > > PPML at arin.net
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > :):)
> > /S
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml