[3777] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Customer AS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David R. Conrad)
Tue Aug 20 01:34:25 1996
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:19:12 -0400."
<199608192119.RAA06946@jazz.internic.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:19:17 +0900
From: "David R. Conrad" <davidc@apnic.net>
>> I think I remember the logic behind this. The end user requests
>> provider independent addresses, insisting that they would sue the
>> registry if they didn't get them. The draft discourages this and so
>> the registry should discourages this but the draft lets them give in.
>
>Actually, the logic was from multiple ISPs who told us it was imperative
>in certain instances (as noted in the draft) that multi-homed organizations
>be given PI space. The registries (although I officially speak only for
>InterNIC) continue to discourage multi-homed customers from getting PI
>space.
Just to make it unanimous for the RRs, APNIC also discourages PI as
much as we're able. However, with respect to reasoning as to why we
continue to allocate PI space (regardless of whether it is multi-homed
or not), please see RFC 1814.
I would find it really interesting to discover how much of the current
routing table growth is due to newly allocated prefixes getting
announced and how much is the result of a) previously unannounced but
allocated networks being injected or b) entropy resulting from
movement of networks from one provider to another. In my copious
spare time...
Regards,
-drc
