[ppml] [GLOBAL-V6] Re: Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>>    Commodity Frame Relay or ATM with two DAFs entering the  
>> facility, but
>>    an inspection of the DLRs for the PVCs shows that they both  
>> traverse
>>    the same switch.
>>
>>    Two SONET connections that are groomed onto the same OC48.
>
> We know that separacy of circuits is subject to change due to
> the widespread use of switches (DACS, ATM, Ethernet) and the
> widespread telecom practice of grooming customer circuits
> over time. It is hard work to ensure that true separacy
> exists when it is needed to meet customer contract conditions.

Empirically, I would say that it is impossible to be sure. I have
heard too many  stories of a {fire, collision, back hoe, etc.} taking  
down
two circuits that were supposed to be geographically separated, or  
circuits
that weren't supposed to be going that way at all.

If the people charged with doing this can't be sure, how can ARIN ?

> Given this, I think it would be unwise to specify the degree
> of separacy in an ARIN policy. It would be almost impossible to
> enforce such a provision even if you restrict it to new
> applications. And even then, anyone can comply to get their
> ASN and PI block, then go back to the pair of IPv6 tunnels
> for the long haul.
>
> ARIN policy has always had to strike a balance. We are not
> lawmakers or law enforcers.

I would agree.

Regards
Marshall

>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml