[ppml] 2001-2 Revisited (and 2002-3 too ;)

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 01:37 PM, Dave Diller wrote:

>
>> How does this better than 2002-3, which was approved (albeit in 
>> amended form) ? The intent for 2002-3 was that you would get a /24
>> _from ARIN_, which IMHO is better  than from your upstream.
>> Now, it was changed to a /22, and I haven't submitted my proposal yet 
>> (so I don't know if it has ever been exercised), but given 2002-3, 
>> why do we need 2001-2 ?
>
> By my read, 2002-3 won't work for someone who can only justify a 
> handful of IPs at each of several sites.  It requires the same 
> justification as any other request for IPs from ARIN, just with

Of course, this was NOT the original intention and was not
in the original proposal.

> different bit boundaries.  No multihoming special-case caveats like 
> 2001-2.
>
> Speaking of 2002-3, how will it be put into practice?  There seem to 
> be two ways it could play out:
>
> * Current MH policy is "Used a /21?  Here's a /20".  2002-3 could 
> simply be shifting that two bits to "Used a /23?  Here's a /22".
>
> * Single-homed policy is "Used a /20?  Here's a /20".  2002-3 could 
> both move the bits down as well as unify the policies.
>
> It dsoesn't say which of the two wil be put into play - whether the 
> /21-->/20 is an integral part of the MH policy concept or simply a 
> now-outmoded exception.  At risk of steering the topic astray, 
> clarification on the mechanics would be useful.
>
> -dd
>
>
>
                                  Regards
                                  Marshall Eubanks

T.M. Eubanks
e-mail : marshall.eubanks at telesuite.com
http://www.telesuite.com