Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

["Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc () imach com>]

On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Vadim Antonov wrote:

> You may want to ask Sean to send you a copy of SL-MAE-E's configuration.
> There already are *huge* filter lists, just to maintain sanity of
> routing.

That would be quite informative, actually.  I might just drop him a note, 
if he has time to read it with all of this stuff going on her in cidrd 
and nanog.

> > I doubt you're going to need to add many filters :)
>
> Heh. Never underestimate the laziness (overworkiness, underpaidness,
> or just plain cluelessness) of netadmins.

True, and of course it wouldn't be their fault that they ignored the 
message.  But it would make for some interesting stories...

> It is not the tools, it is the politics.  Getting rid of nukes
> completely is a nice goal.  Does anybody seriously think it can
> be done today?  Not until we see the last of Kings and Presidents
> (not mentioning Senators and other Servants of the people).
>
> A net.politzai is a very unrewarding role, potentially leading
> to real lawsuits.  Passive filtering with well-announced policy
> at least gives no food for lawyers.  Sprint's policies are
> a result of extensive consultations between engineering, marketing
> and legal people (and activist customers), and is a way for Sprint
> to protect its own network from the routing collapse.

I'm starting to understand a few more of the underlying issues here.  
It's not just a "balance the allocations vs the table size and figure out 
how to deal with the people who announce a /18 as 64 /24's..." issue.  

It's how to do the above and not get sued or otherwise trampled on...

Thanks,-forrest