[ppml] 2005-1 (was: Re: Policy without consensus?)
billd at cait.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 24 10:37:12 EST 2006
> > Some folks assume that enterprises are willing to swallow a
> > lack of PI space
> > and multihoming. Wrong - they are not and will not now or in
> > the future.
> As an enterprise network manager, I do not expect PI space. I
> do expect the ability to mulithome, and the ability to renumber
> should I change providers. PI space is, at best, a "nice to
Lee, the ability to renumber would be there whether you have a dozen hosts
or a million. The requirement is that you can renumber in a manner that
does not compromise your ability to maintain business continuity without
significant costs (various kinds)...
Multihoming gives you connectivity reliability or helps.
Ease of renumbering or PI space gives you performance liability by ensuring
that connectivity competition exists for you.
Assuming multihoming, in the absence of that flexibility, who compensates
you for the loss? If BIG guys get that benefit and little guys can
effectively renumber without duress, it's the middle guy who gets screwed.
If no one gets PI space, then the little guy is the only one to escape.
Multihoming and flexibility to choose among providers are a requirements to
move to v6 for most I think, unless v4 address depletion causes crisis,
seems to me.
> > They buy carrier services - and they will not buy IPv6
> > services without PI space and true multihoming.
> I need reliable connectivity. To me, that means multihoming.
> PI space would be one way to ease transitions in multihoming,
> but good design and tools from major vendors would be enough.
> > - Daniel Golding
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML