Subject: RE: [RADIR] section 5.5 of prob statement

From: "Azinger, Marla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:27:16 -0400

Thomas-  I dont have a problem with your adjustment to the wording.  As for the last sentence that you see as operator level more than RIR...I agree, and it would be good to relocate that sentence in another location that addresses how operators effect the growth by their decisions.

As for Scudders comments...I must confess...I cant decipher what he meant in his email.  So I cant agree with his suggestion only because I dont understand what he is suggesting.

Cheers!
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:43 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RADIR] section 5.5 of prob statement 

"Azinger, Marla" <[email-masked]> writes:

> Here is the small write up I did on 5.5:

> 5.5 RIR Policy:

> RIR policy indirectly attributes to more updates by the subnet size
> they directly allocate to users through PI policy.  If PI did not
> exist then these users would not have their own subnets directly
> injected into the global internet, they instead would be inlcuded
> within a providers supernet.  What will also lead to more updates is
> if RIR members work together and agree to let filters allow more
> specifics than a /32 through that come out of the PA addresses
> range.

This is a tough section. I can't help be read it is saying "the RIRs
are part of the problem allowing PI". But in some sense, the RIRs are
being made scapegoats.

How about:

RIR address policy has direct impact on the routing load because
address policy determines who is eligible for a PI assignment (which
impacts how many are given out in practice) and the size of the
assignment (which impacts how much address space can be aggregated
within a single assignment). If PI assignments for end sites did not
exist then those end sites would not need to advertise their own
prefix directly into the global routing system; instead their address
block would be covered by their provider's aggregate. That said, RIRs
have adopted PI policies in response to community demand, for reasons
described elsewhere (e.g., to support multihoming and to avoid the
need to renumber).

> What will also lead to more updates is if RIR members work together
> and agree to let filters allow more specifics than a /32 through that
> come out of the PA addresses range.

This is the operators agreeing to do something, not the RIRs.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
RADIR mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir

_______________________________________________
RADIR mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:08:44 -0400

On Jul 20, 2007, at 12:27 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> As for Scudders comments...I must confess...I cant decipher what he  
> meant in his email.  So I cant agree with his suggestion only  
> because I dont understand what he is suggesting.

Sorry, let me try again.  Here's what I wrote (I assume this is what  
you were referring to):

> On Jul 17, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> I'd say s/would not need to/would not/.  As written, it makes it  
> sound as though the need to do so is a problem from the end site's  
> PoV, whereas of course it's not.

Rewriting the obscure Unix-isms and initialisms:

I'd say "would not need to" instead of "would not".  As written, it  
makes it sound as though the need to do so is a problem from the end  
site's point of view, whereas of course it's not.

Any better?

--John