[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Per Heldal]

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 14:34 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:04:18AM +0100, Per Heldal wrote:
> > The suggested policy also seems to be in conflict with the RIR principle
> > of not being involved in routing. Wherever there's money to be made
> 
> I don't believe there is any such RIR principle.
> 

Not to say what is right or wrong, but there has been a general attitude
against operational involvement in routing. At least within the RIRs I
know (RIPE, ARIN and APNIC) going back to the late 90's. That has
translated into e.g.:

- weak or missing mechanisms to deal with policy offenders.

- weak and mainly unofficial recommendations wrt various aspects of
prefix filtering.

The general expression communicated has been "we're not the routing
police" ... which may be ok, until you create policies that make no
sense unenforced.


> All of the RIR's take a lot of input from those who do routing.
> Many of the allocation policies were written by those familar with
> routing in an effort to lead to an efficient, stable routing system.
> 
> What the RIR's have said repeatedly is that they cannot guarantee
> routeability.  No RIR can promise that some ISP will get your route
> in a table somewhere.

All the RIRs can guarantee under current policies is uniqueness wrt the
allocations they make from the blocks they've been delegated authority
for. 

("RIR" is here the ops-unit that do the actual work. For the
RIR-community things can quickly change if there's political motivation
within the community for change.)


//per