JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
You need to read all the policies before making such statements. For example that explains the /32 in LACNIC.
A 10-50 people organization that is not an ISP, doesn't do hosting, only has 3 offices, get a /32, which is good for 65536 /48's, please explain me how that is 'good justification' ?
RIRs can be considered, and in fact they are, critical infrastructures, and in some regions, then they get a /32, and while you can't warrantee that a /48 will be filtered, I agree that a /32 is the right size for any critical infrastructure.
RIR's provide "Address Space" not a "routing guarantee". ARIN has a micro-allocation policies for "critical infrastructure", these are of size /48. This is for The IX "critical infrastructure" policies also only provide a /48. Filtering is something that is happening at the ISP's, not at the RIR. It is nothing that the RIR can do about, and it is also nothing that the RIR would have to worry about. According to your analogy, anybody should be getting IPv4 /24 or IPv6 /32's simply because they have 1 box somewhere and they are afraid of being filtered. That is not how justification of address space works. If it does work that way today, then it definitely has to be changed ASAP. Greets, Jeroen