[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Paul Vixie]

# If ARIN were to further ensure that these PI allocations could be aggregated
# by city or LATA then the scaling impact can be mitigated by aggregation of
# many small routes into one larger prefix for each city or LATA. Network
# operators will then only need to keep detail for PI users in the same city
# or LATA.

urban legend alert!  (we already beat this one to death, didn't we?)

# Note that this is very much like geo-topological addressing on a regional
# (single RIR) scale. And we can do it today by making the appropriate ARIN
# policy.

unless there's a contract between the address holder and the address
allocator preventing portability, regional addressing is like an initial
introductory interest rate on a credit card -- the benefit, if any, will
be fleeting.

a large isp could ensure nonportability of its regional addresses.

so could a city government or metropolitan communications authority.

but not an RIR.

# > A non-functional internet or one in which some significant portion of
# > addresses are unreachable or unstable does not serve the end user or
# > provider constituencies.  This is the extreme of one side of this issue,
# > and, the source of most of the anti-PI statements.
# 
# ARIN has never guaranteed the routability of address prefixes.

and yet i don't see ARIN's policy process approving the allocation of any
significant amount of nonrouteable address space.  so while it's not any
sort of guaranty, it sure as heck is a guiding principle for policymaking.