[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[bmanning at karoshi.com]

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:34:34AM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> > 	(and today, useful is defined as community
> > 	consensus on insertion into nearly everyones routing table...)
> 
> I don't think that has been true for a long time now. The consensus is
> that useful means that you can configure the addresses into a LAN and
> not worry about addressing conflicts in the future because the addresses
> are registered for your use and nobody else's. 

	hum... can you tell me the rational for minimum prefix size
	policies then?  those certainly are community generated 
	consenus opinions.  uniqueness is certainly important, but
	being forced into a /21 when I really only need a /28 talks
	to something other than  uniquness.


> > e.g. it will
> > 	no longer be the community defining useful sized delegations,
> > 	it will be the delegee and their upstreams (if any).
> 
> That is the way things stand today for large chunks of IPv4 space which
> many have noted, are missing from the global routing table views.

	such may be true in legacy (pre-RIR) ranges.  i posit that
	it will become increasingly true for the entire IPv4 range.

--bill

> 
> --Michael Dillon