[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Martin Hannigan]

At 03:38 PM 2/4/2006, you wrote:
>Thus spake "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen at unfix.org>
> > On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 10:04 -0500, Kevin Loch wrote:
> > [..]


[ SNIP]


> > Putting down criteria is hard, probably too hard though.
> > In either case scrap the "ARIN" part from the above. Some site might
> > have arranged connectivity from a party in the LACNIC and one in the
> > ARIN region and then they would be excluded from the above.
>
>Sounds logical.  At least one link needs to be in ARIN's region for an
>assignment to make sense; where the rest of the links go shouldn't matter.


I always thought it was location of the entity. Signing contracts
in foreign countries is expensive vis-a-vis, for one thing. I always
felt that ARIN was serving areas, they do say region which to me implies
area, vs. circuit landings.


> > Of course the question 'what is multihoming' is another nice one:
>
>(Un?)fortunately, we already have an official definition.  From the NRPM:
>
>     2.7 Multihomed
>
>     An organization is multihomed if it receives full-time connectivity from
>     more than one ISP and has one or more routing prefixes announced
>     by at least two of its upstream ISPs.
>
>I'd like to think tunnels wouldn't qualify as "full-time connectivity", but
>it's not clear.  When this definition was adopted it probably wasn't
>considered that someone might get IP service via a tunnel (over what?).  We
>probably need to update this if we wish to exclude tunnels, or at least
>tunnels that aren't to the same ISP that provides the physical link.


I'd advocate that tunnels do qualify as full time
connectivity if you can go to and from the site via IPv6. The links
themselves are simple electrical interfaces that know nothing about
what is riding on them.



>Interestingly, an org with two locations but no connection between them may
>qualify as multihomed, even if it only has one ISP at each location.  Also,
>an org with one physical connection may qualify as multihomed if it has a
>tunnel to a second ISP.  Not good.


The root server system does exactly this.


>Note that all of these holes apply just as much to IPv4 if they also apply
>to IPv6.  We either need an update to 2.7 or an official interpretation of
>"full-time connectivity", but IMHO they should no be considered potential
>flaws in this proposal specifically.
>


[ SNIP ]


You are right, but I think we should try and focus on 2005-1 for now.
That was pretty overwhelming. :-)





Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of the Technical Staff                  Network Operations
                                                hannigan at renesys.com