On May 29, 2012, at 3:01 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Sigh. As much as I might enjoy challenging the hairsplitting and revisionism you wish to engage in, I'll pass this time. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree that historically, the RIRs stated that they "have nothing to do with routing" (since I'm sure you'll just continue to ignore the use of the active verb as opposed to the noun "routability").
I do not claim to know the practices of all of the RIRs, but in
the ARIN region we've been very clear to state that ARIN does not
control routing of address blocks, specifically -
"Polices must allow for aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical manner to permit the routing scalability which is necessary for proper Internet routing. However, polices cannot guarantee routability of any particular Internet number resource as that is dependent on the actions of the individual Internet operators."
Saying that RIRs "do not control routing of address blocks" is
very different from saying "have nothing do with routing", and
in fact ARIN has several sections in number resource policy which
consider routing implications.
You said "All the RIRs have said [that they have nothing to do with
routing]" but that definitely isn't the case with ARIN either past or
present, and could't be for any RIR which has a policy which considers
state of routing or intended routing in address policy (as anticipated
in RFC 2050, in ARIN NRPM AS & multihome policy, as exists in RIPE 196,