Owen,
Can't you see the fault in your argument? You are suggesting that a member needlessly creates a tunnel to HE just to satisfy the needs of the current policy... that seems wasteful and a stupid hoop which just gets around the policy.
Who said anything about needlessly… They probably need IPv6 and this gets them decent IPv6 connectivity.
I might as well just offer free peering with a couple of routes to my ASN for anyone who wants to satisfy the policy.
You’re certainly welcome to do that. After all, I’m not trying to tell you how to run your network.
The point here is fixing a requirement that is so easily avoided, it needed be there in the first place.
But you go so far beyond fixing the requirement that you break so much more. Go back and look at what I said about a policy I would not object to.
All you are doing is causing people to create route-object garbage so that they are able to run their networks the way they want to.
I didn’t say anything about creating a single route object. There’s no requirement to create a route object or even use an IRR in anything I said, so you’re just wrong here.
Owen