* Keith.Nolan@premiereglobal.ie (Nolan, Keith) [Fri 17 Jul 2009, 13:06 CEST]:
I believe the proposal has great merit and needs further discussion, and is directly related to my email on the 12th July.
"The other issue with suggesting that we use PI Space instead of PA Space where we will not be in a position to aggregate is the PI Assignment which would be approved would be less than a /24 (as we don't need 128 addresses for Multi-homed BGP Peering), therefore wouldn't be routable on the Internet (Policy proposal 2006-05 refers to this issue and suggests the smallest PI Space should be /24) So the only way to implement Multi-Homed BGP Routing from Multiple locations which don't need a full /24 network is to become a LIR and create smaller /25 or /26 inetnum's with larger /24 route objects from your PA Space. And since this is a workaround, just like a company stretching the truth about their IP requirements when applying for a PI Space to get a full /24, surely a LIR should be allowed to create inetnum's for a /24 when they also need to create a /24 route object."
And while all transits may not route a /24 IP Range, the Tier1 transits we are paying for transit do route /24 networks, but are filtering anything smaller.
The RIPE NCC hands out addresses based on a need for addresses, not on a need to satisfy other parties' policies. This is a good thing and it should stay that way. -- Niels. -- <BitKat> zo weten we nog steeds niet of de steganosaurus wel echt bestaan heeft