[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks

[Davis, Terry L]

Steve

I fully agree; there should be no differences between public and private or routed and non-routed.  

- If I were a startup initially operating single homed and then grew into a large company with true "business continuity requirements" (or became identified as "critical infrastructure" with potential legislated reliability reqs), would I then have to re-address my entire company to be dual-homed?

- Likewise if as initially planned ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), begins operating the next generation global "air traffic control network" as an IPv6 closed network, and then years later unseen technical issues or just changes in the Internet infrastructure requires them to become routed, would you suggest that we try to then re-number their entire global IPv6 "air traffic control network" to become routable?  (Which would honestly be both politically and technically impossible once it was globally deployed!) 

One set of rules for all seems like the only way to go forward.

Take care
Terry
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steve Bertrand
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:33 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks
> 
> On 2010.02.22 19:59, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I cannot speak for the entire AC, however:
> 
> > I'm all for relaxing the policies for routable space. I'm opposed
> > to replacing them with a policy which was put in place under the
> > guise of creating "non-routable" space.
> > 
> > Making assignments for various things out of "a block reserved for
> > that purpose" essentially creates an artificial class system. 
> 
> Then there should be no distinction between 'private' and 
> 'public', and
> there should be no difference in policy requirements for 
> acquiring either.
> 
> imho, if this is the case, then the entire discussion of 
> "Non-connected
> networks" is futile, isn't it?
> 
> I mean, if you already know that the path of least resistance 
> is already
> going to be allowed, why bother creating policy?
> 
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>