David, > You might want to look at RFC 7020, section 2.2.
I think the use of the phrase “permits aggregation” is key there. Aggregation is a consideration, not a requirement. An example being don’t satisfy someone asking for a /19 with 4x/21s when you could break up a /18 instead. The goal in RFC 7020-2.2 appears to be “don’t *unnecessarily* contribute to increasing table size”, not “make table size a reason for prohibiting very small allocations” which was really the point I was refuting (perhaps too tersely). Perhaps that was not the authors’ intent? I know for sure at least half of them are here ;) -Matt Matt Erculiani On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 18:09 David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 14, 2024, at 4:15 PM, Matt Erculiani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > your announcement from wherever you are in the world consumes a slot in > their routing tables > The size of the Internet’s routing table isn’t an ARIN problem, nor should > it influence number policy decisions. It’s a vendor and operator problem. > > You might want to look at RFC 7020, section 2.2. > > Regards, > -drc > >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
