BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sun Nov 28 18:56:31 UTC 2004


> Hummzz, I guess that was the discussion PI vs PA that went on here ? The
> issue was that not only ASN delegation should be more policed but that
> also PI delegation should be more policed. Atleast that's my point of
> view.
>
I think that in the current v4 policies, ASN assignment is sufficiently
policed.  I think that v4 ip assignment and allocation are sufficiently
policed, and, at least in the ARIN RIR case, there is reason to look at
reducing (slightly) the MAU for the policing of v4 prefixes.

> As I also stated in my last post (which you snipped out, and is pretty
> relevant) is that the handing out of ASN's should be harder. Currently
> ASN's are given to every silly dude that says 'i want multihoming'.
>
This simply isn't true.  It was true several years ago, but, is not true
now.  (At least for ARIN.  I don't know what the policies are elsewhere).

> However I understand your statement, but the IPv4 policy's are mostly
> there because you still have to support the old way. In IPv6 we can do
> things the new way, so why shouldn't we decide on new policies that get
> us to stop all issues we had with IPv4.
>
That would be nice, but, eliminating PI space for organizations that are
able to get it or have it today will NOT lead to IPv6 adoption and will
not stop the issues.  It will stop some issues from some perspectives,
but, as far as a significant portion of the IP using world is concerned,
a major issue is not being able to switch providers without incurring
significant costs associated with renumbering.  Another issue is not being
able to attach to multiple providers and have transparent session-continuing
failover between them.  Today, we solve those issues in IPv4 with ASNs
and PI space that is multihomed.

Many of the current v6 proposals eliminate that solution.  Please tell me
how, under the current v6 policies, you propose to solve the above issues
in v6?

Thanks,

Owen

> --
> Cliff Albert <cliff at oisec.net>



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041128/31b912c8/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list