[ppml] Keeping the story straight

[Tony Hain]

This note from Heather is indirectly contradictory to Paul's complaint about
ULA-C. Official or not, policy is already tied to 'routability'. 

The fundamental question that has to be kept straight is; are the RIRs
'stewards of the address space', or 'stewards of the -publicly routed-
address space'. If I listen to Randy's frequent points about 'used in the
public Internet', then the core of RIR policy is all about routability. If I
listen to the points about 'stewards of the space', then the discussion
about length longer than /24 makes absolutely no sense, along with the
objections to managing ULA-C. 

Why shouldn't ARIN allocate/assign an IPv4 block longer than /24 if that is
what the customer is asking for? Oh wait, it is because some vocal members
only want to have space go the club that actually intends to -route it- in
the public Internet. That sounds exactly like a blanket statement about
routability to me; where the routing cabal wants to use the allocation
policy system to prevent organizations from getting a routing slot. If the
systems really are independent, there is no justification for an RIR to
reject any request, just provide the appropriate length for the customer
need and let them worry about getting it routed. If the systems really are
tied, then the bs about 'not guaranteeing routability' needs to go away.

Somebody needs to figure out the real story, then try to keep it straight.
Tony 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Heather Schiller
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:28 PM
> To: Leroy Ladyzhensky
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks
> 
> 
> Policies to reduce the minimum assignment from ARIN down to a /24 have
> been proposed in the past, including the last policy development cycle.
> 
> You can read archived ppml comments on the subject and meeting
> transcripts
> to get a feel for and against the idea.
> 
> Most recently:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_6.html
> 
> However your example of 75 IP's is significantly smaller than a /24 -
> which is the generally accepted minimum prefix size passed between
> providers.  If you would also like providers to consider lowering the
> prefix size they will accept, Nanog might be a better forum, as that is
> more operational than IP addressing policy.  (However don't expect it to
> be a popular idea, as it would add to routing table growth)  ARIN
> doesn't
> guarantee the routability of address space, so even if the policy were
> changed to make the minimum assignment a /25, you'd have to find a
> provider willing to leak it, and others willing to listen.
> 
>   --Heather
> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paul_Vixie at isc.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:22 AM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
> 
> aside from the difficulties pointed out during this thread regarding
> enforcement of ULA terms vs. PI terms, there are two other things that
> prevent me from thinking well of ULA.
> 
> first, ARIN does not currently consider routability when allocating
> address space.  non-routable space comes from ietf/iana, not the RIRs.
> so, for ARIN to start allocating nonroutable space is a big change.  we
> would have to define "routable", we could face implied liability for
> routability on "normal address space" (even if we continue to disclaim
> it in the NRPM as we do now), and we would then walk the slippery slope
> of the changing definition "largest" with respect to breidbart's maxim: