[ppml] Alternatives to 2002-3 Wording and Scope - Please Eval uate
gregm at datapro.co.za
Mon Oct 13 04:55:16 EDT 2003
On Friday 10 October 2003 18:49, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 09:01:09AM -0500, Bill Darte
> > 2./ Possible Modified 2002-3 Policy
> > 2002-3 Micro-Allocations and Assignments for Multihomed Networks
> > Multi-homed entities with an ARIN assigned ASN may justify and obtain a
> > block of address space with prefix length extending to /22 directly from
> > ARIN. When prefixes are longer than /20, these micro-allocations or
> > micro-assignments will be from a reserved block for that purpose.
> This would be my choice. The only thing I would do differently is
> removed the first "multi-homed". That is already a requirement to
> get an ASN, so in the current context it's redundant, and although
> I think it's very unlikely for the ASN requirements to change in
> the future if they do I think those with an ASN should still be
> able to get a block, so removing it wouldn't cause an additonal
> update to be needed later.
I think the original wording was pretty good. There requirement for ASN is
simply a unique routing policy. Eg. If you want to interconnect at an
exchange / peering point, you need an ASN, but you're not technically
"multi-homed" because you still only have one transit provider.
I'm a bit concerned about "ARIN assigned ASN." I'm not sure if it's possible,
but what are the chances of an organisation applying to ARIN for address
space but having an ASN assigned from elsewhere? Were there historical ASN
assignments? Maybe ARIN can clarify if this is an issue or not.
More information about the ARIN-PPML