[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

[Owen DeLong]

--On April 27, 2006 6:07:58 PM -0400 "Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net)"
<jason.schiller at mci.com> wrote:

> Marla,
> 
> Currently we filter on the /32 boundry except for legacy /35s and critical
> infrastructure.  
> 
> I don't disagree with you about providers filtering on the /48 boundry for
> PI either.
> 
> But I don't see how anyone can defend allowing PI multihomers 1 slot
> (/48) in the routing table, but not allowing PA multi-homers one slot
> (/48) in the routing table.
> 
> Either de-aggregation is an acceptible solution to multi-homing, or it
> isn't.  Whether the end-site uses a PI address or a PA address should make
> no difference.
> 
Deaggregation within a known prefix where it is widely known and accepted
that some providers may not accept these prefixes because they are
deaggregated is, in my opinion, preferable to a wild-west of deaggregates
spread all over the addressing space.

> Secondly, when customers start to whine about wanting to slice up their
> announcement to the global routing table the boundry may slip a bit.
> 
That will be up to the ISPs that accept or do not accept their routes.
ARIN cannot and does not pretend to control this.

Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060427/027efc05/attachment.sig>