Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

> There is at least one very simple response. Set up some deviant CIX, say
> IX195-8, let everyone with a shortish 195/8 prefix connect to it either
> directly through their own provider, or indirectly through some tunnel, and
> have IX195-8 announce reachability of 195/8. That is, in short, altern
> topology to meet addresses when the converse is too hard. KRE detailed
> that for the general case, but it would be even simpler in the case of
> RIPE, since all the allocated network numbers are in the same geographical
> area.

I still think it would be worthwhile doing a top-down experiment with
this sort of address structure around an easily aggregated geographical
area, say the San Francisco Bay Area in northern California. I brought the
idea up about 6 months ago and it floundered due to disinterest, but it
still seems to be viable.

However, as Andrew w/UUnet pointed out some time ago, you end up providing
transit in this way.

If the goal is to only announce 195/8, any provider numbered in that block
that is dual-homed with this "deviant CIX" and some other provider suddenly
starts providing transit for the entire "deviant CIX".

I highly doubt that this is desirable.