[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

[brian.knight at us.mizuho-sc.com]

> What makes punching holes in PA space more attractive than PI space for 
> them?
> 
> This is not an idle question.  While there are many obvious technical and 
> business reasons for multihomers getting PI space, I'm unable to identify 
> _any_ reasons for the end site to prefer PA.

What if the site is unable to justify PI space?

My organization cannot justify any space under the adopted proposal 2005-1,
and we multihome today.  Unless the policy is changed or ISP's allow us to
announce PA space, we can't move to v6.

Personally speaking, I wouldn't mind a requirement to obtain PI space if I
knew it was required to multihome and it was easy to justify such space.  I
don't think my organization would have a problem with it, either.

I would support a measure similar to the APNIC proposal mentioned by Randy.

> You're missing the point.  PIv6 is all about giving people the _ability_
to 
> multihome.  Multihoming in PA space (v4 or v6) is not an option for both 
> technical and business reasons.

Honest questions follow.

Is the goal simply to prevent carving up /32's?  How will that measure
control routing table size?

Or, put another way: To the DFZ router operators, what is the difference if
the /48 comes from the ISP or from ARIN?

It seemed that many people had been comfortable with multihoming in PA
space.  When did that change?

-Brian Knight
Sr. Network Engineer
Mizuho Securities USA, Futures Division
http://www.mizuho-sc.com/

* Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself.