[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Micro-allocations for anycast services

[David Ulevitch]

On Aug 12, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> If you are actually multihomed with an ISP assigned block and have  
> a legitimate need for multicast, I can't imagine that you don't  
> meet the criteria for an ARIN issued /22 whether you need it or not.

Exactly.  If one were required to have an allocation first, it'd be  
easy to get -- justified or not.  In fact, to qualify for the anycast  
allocation as its currently proposed one would already meet the  
requirements for the /22 multihoming requirements.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the proposal be modified to  
add that.   As Alec pointed out, it was just a comment in discussion,  
not a suggested proposal change.

Thanks,
David Ulevitch


>
>
> --On August 12, 2005 9:23:36 AM -0700 David Ulevitch  
> <davidu at everydns.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 12, 2005, at 8:47 AM, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alec,
>>
>>
>>> For example, the issue has less to do with an entity not being able
>>> to justify enough space for their entire enterprise and more to do
>>> with the fact that they cannot carve a /24 out of their space for
>>> fear of having it filtered.  What if an org was required to already
>>> have an ARIN allocation under the normal criteria to qualify for an
>>> anycast block?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that's the right idea.  For example, I can multihome
>> just fine with my ISP assigned block but I can't deploy an inter-as
>> anycast system with it.  Why should I abuse the micro-allocation or /
>> 22 end-user multihoming policy just to meet an anycast /24 policy?
>>
>> Or perhaps I misunderstood you.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David Ulevitch
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
> !DSPAM:42fceeed109732110434741!