[ppml] What's in a name? An address allocation would smell as sweet

Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO jdhoule at att.com
Thu Mar 23 17:30:20 EST 2006

Mike et al:
   Thanks for the clarification.   
   So I guess the counter-proposal to PI addresses, is to consider
organizations inside larger organizations that, if separate, would
qualify as an LIR.  These folks maybe should be considered LIRs from

   Two other points you bring up.   
   With IPv6 still not quite ready-for-primetime it may be difficult for
us to see this but... The IPv6 vision is to turn concerns like: 
"But if they change ISPs then they must renumber each site", 
Into benefits like:  
"If they connect to multiple ISPs they have additional address
allocations to use".

   One last thought... These PI proposals (one more than the other) are
not only proposals for PI addresses, but also proposals to perpetuate
the fragmented address space, as suffered today by IPv4, where each
"site" shows up as an entry in the global routing table. 

   Are we in North America that ready to abandon the IPv6 visions of
aggregated routing tables and multi-addressing as a multi-homing

Joe Houle

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:58 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] What's in a name? An address allocation would smell

>    What's in a name? That which we call PI allocation 
>    By any other name (LIR allocation) would smell as sweet;

> 2)  Redefining/relaxing the definition of what an LIR is?

An LIR is essentially the same as an ISP. Some people in Europe
invented the term LIR because they thought that ISP was too
commercial at a time when the majority of the Internet was
composed of academic or research networks.

The essential characteristic of an LIR or an ISP is that
they are charged with operating a network. That is job number
one for their organization. The PI allocation policy is
targetted at organizations for whom some other activity is
job one, such as car manufacturing, airplane operation,
food distribution, etc. These organizations all operate
networks as a support activity, not a primary activity.

Now, if they spin off the network operations into a separate
entity, that entity is an LIR and can qualify for its own
/32. For an example of this in Europe, go to http://www.mgi.de
and click on "English" on the grey bar along the top, 3rd from
the left. If you go to http://www.ripe.net and do a whois search
for 2001:4d20::/32 you will see their IPv6 PA allocation.

Playing with the definition of an LIR can only make it easier
for other companies to do what MGI has done. I think the intent
of the PI proposal before us is to tailor a policy to the needs
of companies for whom networking is a secondary support activity.

This type of company could go to an ISP and get a /48 for each
of their locations. But if they change ISPs then they must renumber
each site. And they cannot effectively multihome any of their sites
between two ISPs. A good PI policy will give them a /48 for each
location directly from the RIR, and will ENABLE multihoming with
two ISPs.

--Michael Dillon

--Michael Dillon

PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list