[arin-ppml] DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Yes.  Tunneling is and has always been a least-cost solution.

If they care that much about reliability they won't tunnel - they
will just get a T1 or other circuit to an ISP that will assign
them an IPv4 subnet.

Even the old "employee working from home on a VPN" scenario is
a least-cost solution.  For example, one of our customers has
a T1 to us where we have that circuit going to a private DSL
bridge, and from that bridge, DSL lines to all their key employees
locations.  Another customer runs a DSL line to their private DSL
bridge here.

When those employees sitting in their homes surf the web,
their traffic goes via DSL to the bridge in our NOC, then
to their company then out their company's
firewall then onward to their employers upstream Internet
feed - which as a matter of fact, isn't us.

You and I are both relying on a 3rd party to even have
this discussion at all - the 3rd party is the ppml list
itself.  And the ppml is relying on other parties to carry
traffic between us.  And those networks are probably
relying on cableline providers, not their own fiber.  And
so on and so on.

Welcome to the Internet!  This is the very ESSENSE of it.


Ted


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:schnizlein at isoc.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: matthew at matthew.at; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy 
> (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)
> 
> Are you actually saying you think that creating these 
> tunnels, with the side effect of reliance on a third party 
> for security and stability, not to mention the profit of the 
> party providing service, is better for the Internet than 
> transferring an address to the party that wants to reach the 
> (legacy) IPv4-only hosts that will remain on the Internet for 
> some time?
> 
> Really?
> 
> On 2009Mar26, at 2:51 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > Customer wants to field a server with an IPv4 address on it FINE.
> > Nothing is stopping them from going to an IPv4 gateway provider and 
> > getting a static IPv4 address, and tunneling from their 
> server to that 
> > provider over the IPv6 Internet.
> 
>