[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: CustomerConfidentiality - Time Sensitive

[James Hess]

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Charles O'Hern <charles at office.tcsn.net> wrote:
> Quite to the contrary,  a single server chassis is perfectly capable of
> justifying more than the one address that a /30 would provide.  A single

If there is an an  Apache process and a  Sendmail process on the same
OS install, each each using a different host address from the
IP-Aliased interfaces.    Then it is two servers.   Even if there is
only one piece of metal  powering these servers.

>> Important networks should have someone on call 24x7.  <snipped all after>
> 'Important' is subjective (as are my opinions of course).  Currently the

The matter of importance is to be judged by the network providing the contact.

Important means:   it  would be at least as damaging or costly to the
organization to have the upstream providers simply unplug the entire
network due to a serious issue  as it costs to have a  24x7  contact
and operator able to properly address any issue  that occurs during
their off-hours.

If the network does not reach that level of importance, then there
should be no issue using an  8x5  contact.

> Point 1: As, in common usage, the smallest network that can be
> advertised via BGP is a /24. Traffic originating from a re-assigned
> network smaller than /24 can not be transit independent of the ISP that

This is not entirely the case.    A  /25  or smaller  can be
advertised, with the proper arrangements.

Often just to the immediate upstream provider  (and many their
customers may accept).  But if the end-user is multi-homed,  with all
major Tier 1s,  they can arrange to have broad connectivity
independent of their ISP, advertising only /25s.

This may become more common after IPv4  exhaustion, and larger blocks
are not easily available.


--
-J