> Longer prefixes are misguided for a number of reasons, but I was’t referring > to that. > I was calling the idea of deluding ourselves into believing that the useful > lifetime of IPv4 can be extended by these ever increasing extreme measures > misguided.
This is starting to digress from the original purpose of this discussion, so I'll keep it short. Using longer prefixes is by no means delusional, rather it is significantly beneficial in allowing smaller and newer network operators to establish more than two points of presence, and it most certainly prevents wastage at IXes. > > Again, members define policy (be it a routing policy or otherwise). If a > > community member presents a policy about the routability of prefixes longer > > than a /24 at an open policy meeting and it reaches consensus with the > > wider community, why should we not accept it? RIRs do so much more than > > just administering addresses and if that's all they did, I believe the > > internet would not be the way that it is today. > Well, at least in the ARIN region, there is a concept of scope of the PDP and > policy proposals which are out of scope are rejected out of hand. Unfortunately I do not know enough about ARIN's PDP so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this specifically. _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
