[ppml] Effects of explosive routing table growth on ISP behavior

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 08:54 -0500, Brian Johnson wrote:
> > MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT ARIN NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ROUTING POLICY!

> Is it just RIRs that have no business being involved in 
> routing-policy or do you resist any coordination of 
> routing-policies between DFZ operators? Suppose a market 
> emerges and it must be regulated, how do you enforce 
> regulations without a stick? If the RIRs can't advise 
> operators on routing-policies, who can? 

This is a silly comment. The RIRs have no business in routing 
policy because they do not have the expertise, and the true
stakeholders in member companies are not involved in the RIRs.
The RIRs have no competent advice to give an ISP on routing
policy.

That said, there is nothing wrong with RIRs mediating some
coordination of routing policies between DFZ operators, but
this must be done, first and foremost, by getting the routing
policy stakeholders involved in the process. If they don't buy-in,
then it won't work.

And please don't send me a list of the few PPML participants who
also happen to have design authority in their networks. I know 
that there are a few such people, but the point is that RIR policy
is being set, for the most part, by people who do not design their
companies' networks or set their companies' routing policy.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. Some might argue, with some justification, that not all
ARIN members have the right internal stakeholders involved in
the ARIN policymaking process. There is a difference between
administering the IP address supply chain, and the making of
IP address allocation policy.