[75886] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott W Brim)
Sat Nov 27 11:23:46 2004
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:23:09 -0500
From: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,
"Ryan O'Connell" <ryan-nanog@complicity.co.uk>,
Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>,
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>,
Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,
Ryan O'Connell <ryan-nanog@complicity.co.uk>,
Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0411270227090.16320@clifden.donelan.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041126221702.04c366b8@localhost>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 10:29:15PM -0800, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
> The thing that brings me out here is the "one size fits all" reasoning th=
at=20
> seems to soll around this community so regularly. "Multihoming should=20
> always use provider-independent addressing" and "Multihoming should alway=
s=20
> use provider-dependent addressing" are the statements in this debate. Wel=
l,=20
> you know what? The argument relating to someone's home while he is=20
> switching from DSL to Cable Modem access service isn't the same as the=20
> argument for a multinational corporation. I don't see any reason that the=
=20
> solution has to be the same either.
This is good. The simple, elegant rules of thumb we've been trying to
use for so long haven't resolved the PI argument. Adding a couple
parameters is a good idea. =20
> So here's my proposal. If you qualify for an AS number (have a reasonable=
=20
> business plan, clueful IT staff, and a certain number of ISPs one connect=
s=20
> with), you should also be able to be a PI prefix.
Except that this still tries to create a simple, elegant rule of thumb,
by indirection -- by dependency on how requirements are defined for
something else. The requirements are similar right now but the
motivation is different. People get ASNs for administrative autonomy
and because of how routing works. I think we need to spell out the
requirements for PI address space separately because motivations may
(will!) change in the future. Reduction in overall complexity, etc. =20
Scott
--ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFBqKnrF0TR2hENFAQRAoZ+AKC83T8MR4cNZJcKYhsIhIfcY5Ss+wCeISzH
ZfkNN5Pc5B23JMhSr/HfbtA=
=YZP0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH--
