[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
tme at multicasttech.com
Thu Jun 29 13:25:33 EDT 2006
On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:07 PM, brian.knight at us.mizuho-sc.com wrote:
>> What makes punching holes in PA space more attractive than PI
>> space for
>> This is not an idle question. While there are many obvious
>> technical and
>> business reasons for multihomers getting PI space, I'm unable to
>> _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
> and we multihome today. Unless the policy is changed or ISP's
> allow us to
> announce PA space, we can't move to v6.
Why not ? Is the 2002-3 IPv4 /22 too stringent ? What would you change ?
> 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.
Note that all prop-035-v001 requires is multi-homing, which was
of the variants of 2005-1.
>> You're missing the point. PIv6 is all about giving people the
>> 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
> * Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML