[144777] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Sep 19 03:06:39 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E76A013.1050203@knownelement.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:02:20 -0700
To: Charles N Wyble <charles@knownelement.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> On 09/18/2011 08:25 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>> I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but =
I'll make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when =
it was written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
>=20
> Well that would be a shame in my opinion. When one is boot strapping a
> network, it's very useful to have an ASN/PI space. Especially for v6. =
If
> one starts with a "real" upstream and a multihomed via tunnel, is that
> really so bad?
>=20
> I don't think it is.
>=20
As someone who has authored the occasional ARIN policy, I will say
that I believe ARIN policy is intentionally agnostic about underlying
physical and logical topology of your network beyond those aspects
defined in the policy.
I do not believe that there was any intention to preclude tunnels
and that if there had been, the policy authors and/or the community
would have been perfectly capable of adding language to express
that intent.
As such, no, I don't believe that the use of tunnels is outside of the
spirit of the policy as it is written.
Owen
