-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-08, at 22.22, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 8-nov-04, at 19:31, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Well, the RIRs will actually hand out address-space explicitly saying
they make no guarantees for routability. If you apply for IPv4 PI
space
and can only justify the equivalence of a /26 you will get a /26.
There is a difference between acknowledging that they can't control
how the operator community is going to filter, and telling the
operator community that it's ok to filter out anything smaller than n
while at the same tme giving out blocks that are smaller than n.
I don't think any RIR ever have told anyone what can and can't be
filtered. And they can't tell the opearator community what to do. Which
is EXACTLY why address space is given out without any guarantees of
routability.
Whichever way you slice it this is WRONG. Now obviously this isn't the
forum to keep rehashing this (those who can do something about this
either know about the problem now or they are unwilling to fix it
regardless of the input they receive) but I'm afraid as long as people
are going to defend this or redefine the semantics so that it's ok
after all, I'll have to respond and disagree.
You lost me. You originally wrote
The IETF (imho) should confine itself to protocol work, The RIRs
should confine themselves to being wise stewards of the addressing
resources, and the ISPs need to worry about the operational
coordination of routing... such is not the perview of either the
IETF, the IANA task,
or the RIRs. ....
My point is that this is exactly what the RIRs have always done.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQY/oqaarNKXTPFCVEQKGswCg/f6BRHuVK4O029vnjnTpplK000UAn1mL
SD3dUCY3TnGyqvHher14BP54
=m7Hr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf