> On Dec 20, 2023, at 16:33, Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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.
I never said longer prefixes were delusional. Misguided, yes. Ill-advised, yes. Delusional, no. Believing that we can keep extending the useful life of IPv4 by such shenanigans, OTOH, is delusional. >>> 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. Happy to answer any questions you may have. I spent nearly 15 years as a member of the ARIN AC. Owen _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
