Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Tue May 3 14:49:48 UTC 2011
> >> Why would you give someone address space if its not for routing?
> > In the past I have seen cases where people wanted unique
> > addresses for numbering private networks, VPNs and so on.
> Yep. It has been the case that other RIRs have indeed allocated longer
> than /24 prefixes for this purpose. However, I don't believe that is the
> rationale for this policy (nor, IMHO, should it be -- private addressing
> should no longer be used as a justification for IPv4 space).
I wasn't attempting to justify or support the proposal. I was answering the question.
> The implication of allocating longer than /24 PI is that a receiver of that
> address will face increased connectivity challenges.
> > IP addresses are for IP networks. Whether you and I will ever communicate
> > with them is not important when the assignment criteria are needs based.
> Well, when assignment criteria are _exclusively_ needs based. If /27
> becomes the new maximum prefix length, I suspect it would be ... nice
> if the recipient were made to fully understand the implications of trying
> to announce that prefix ("Death of the Internet predicted, MPEG
> unavailable due to routing collapse").
Sure. It might be useful locally but the likelihood that a /27 will have good international is unlikely unless it contains a very important service.
More information about the RPD