[ppml] PI assignment subdelegation?

[Jon Lewis]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> "Organization" is deliberately ambiguous so that it can be read both ways in 
> cases like this.  If A still has its own connectivity (i.e. it's an 
> autonomous network), it can qualify as a separate org, but it doesn't have 
> to; if A's upstreams will accept a subnet of B's addresses, then in theory

A still has its own multiple connections over which BGP is in use.  The 
trouble is, they're heavy users of NAT and only need a handful of public 
IPs...so unless we fill out the forms saying we want public addresses for 
all of the hundreds of IP devices they have behind a number of NAT 
devices, they don't come close to qualifying for a direct assignment from 
ARIN.  B apparently is bigger and does (or was more creative with the 
paperwork).  I've only done consulting work for A, so I know next to 
nothing about B's network.

> there should be no conflict.  Ideally, both companies would arrange to both 
> advertise B's entire assignment; this is easiest if they maintained common 
> POP(s) that they connected their disparate networks to, but could be done 
> with distinct POPs that had a connection between them to carry traffic coming 
> in to the "wrong" one.

Other than saving a slot in the global routing table, why would each 
network want to announce all the space?  I realize that question sounds 
bad/selfish...but IMO it's mitigated by the fact that A is already doing 
BGP announcing a PA /24...so trading a /24 from B's assignment for their 
PA /24 really doesn't add to the global table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________