BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)

Sat Nov 27 06:09:07 UTC 2004

At 11:31 PM 11/25/04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>I think the policy _SHOULD_ make provisions for end sites and 
>circumstances like this, but, currently, I believe it _DOES NOT_ make such 
>a provision.

I understand the policy in the same way. That said, I believe that the 
policy is wrong.

IMHO, the rules that qualify someone for an AS number should qualify them 
for a prefix. It need not be a truly long prefix, but larger than a /48.

My logic is this. We grant someone an AS number not because we think they 
are an ISP, but because we believe that they are sufficiently well 
connected that using BGP to advertise their routing is necessary, and 
running BGP to a number of neighbors implies an AS number. Well, if you are 
sufficiently well-connected to need to advertise your routing in BGP, 
ingress policing is going to materially hurt you in your use of said 
multiple ISPs. You want an address that you can safely originate from, and 
you want to be able to use routing to multihome in the other direction.

Note that this isn't an argument that all multi-homing should be done using 
provider-independent addressing. This is an argument that some should. 
Multihoming for outfits that don't qualify for an AS number still looks for 
a solution that is implementable by mortals and uses provider-dependent 
addresses. 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 170 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041126/8756f971/attachment.sig>