RE: [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive

[Michael.Dillon@localhost]

> I think this idea is no better than standard redundancy (multiple lines 
to
> the same ISP). Actually, I think it is worse since it is required of you 
to
> either stay in the city or stretch a long fibre to it should you move 
all or
> some of your stuff to another. Companies will try to do the latter 
because
> they don't want to change their IP. 

Most companies do not move to another city. But if they do,
then the cost of long distance backhaul will likely drive them
to renumber their networks to the new city's aggregate. 
Every situation will have corner cases that don't appear
to fit the mold. But, if we introduce geo-topo addressing
as an ALTERNATIVE to classical provider addressing, then
corner cases are less of a problem because there are two
types of address. Sometimes classical PA will work better
and sometimes GEO-TOPO will work better.

> * Enterprises with "real" need of multi-homing having multiple uplinks 
to
> multiple ISPs and their own AS number.

Others have pointed out how this category is likely
to grow a lot as Internet infrastructure becomes more
and more important.

> Couldn't the companies that _need_ PI multi-homing for redundancy 
reasons,
> these enterprises, create an ISP and get their "multi-homing" there 
instead?

Yes. But RIR policy should not force people to adopt
this business model. Policy should give people the flexibility
to adopt the business model that is right for them. 

--Michael Dillon