[ppml] 2005-1 status
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at renesys.com>
>>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.
> And, as pointed out earlier, this opens up the possibility that every home
> user that hits up a couple free tunnel brokers can get PI space. A policy
> with a hole like that will never pass because it will lead to a meltdown of
> the DFZ or wholesale filtering of PI space if there's even minor adoption.
Current IPv4 policy allows anyone to receive a /24 from an upstream
provider if they are multihomed (section 220.127.116.11) *even if they only
require one IP address*. I'm fairly certain this policy was crafted
with the expectation of these /24's showing up in global tables. It
also does not specifically rule out tunneled connections.
While not stated, there may be an implicit requirement that the
multihoming involve BGP. Obviously with PI assignments there
is the expectation that BGP will be used. The latest proposal
gives ARIN plenty of room to verify that BGP will be used and not
just a tunnelbroker account.
For transition purposes we should accomodate those who are
multihoming today, even those multihoming without PI assignments