On Monday 24 April 2006 09:28, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:19:18AM +0200, Marc van Selm wrote:
Sorry I can't agree with you there. Organizations that really need this are generally very professional (ok not always but they they can hire a professional for them) and many times much larger than some ISPs. I think it is unfair to say that a non-ISP business is per definition not able to handle routing networks. I have just seen the 2nd fully uncordinated, but promissed to be smooth, transition of network connectivity by a large ISP in NL so I guess we all make mistakes. Could we leave emotions and kingdoms out of the discussion and focus on the real issue of a large network that happens not to be an ISP that needs solid connectivity to the net and has a large world-wide internal network managed by professionals....
This is actually what I see as the major point in the "PI policy" - figure out who really "needs" it -- and I can agree that there are many networks that would qualify, "being large enough, competent enough, and important[1] enough".
Speaking as a network operator (not as WG co-chair) I would be fairly unhappy with a PI policy that permits "about anyone" to get PI - because PI is very unbalanced regarding "who benefits, and who pays for it".
True you have a good point here that is worth exploring. So how do we seperate then the "about anyone" from "those that need". I personally do not think the community should judge than one has a need and try to cast that in stone in some form of policy. But one could demand a sound justication in the request for PI that describes why PI is vital/important. This is to be judged by the RIR. Would adjusting the policy in that direction make sense? I know that this will take resourses of the RIR but I think it is fair that the requester should pay for that. Marc van Selm -- -- This mail is personal -- All statements in this mail are made from my own personal perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's opinions or policies.