|
|
 |
Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
-
From: Carlos Morgado <>
-
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:29:05 +0000
-
Reply-to:
On 21 Nov 2005 16:27:02, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
lea.roberts@localhost (Lea Roberts) wrote:
> this was the original ARIN proposal 2005-1, which could not reach
> consensus. The last time around it was re-worked to add more
restrictions
> and again failed because other folks felt it was too restrictive. There
> are actually two issues:
>
> 1) the high cost of renumbering in a large organization
Why should they renumber, if it's their own block?
As in, PI ?
> 2) multi-homing for network reliability and resiliency
Where's the problem here? Someone who can afford and establish
a case for _real_ multihoming can get an ASN and thus an assignment.
No. Unless you relax the rules for ASN and then *oh gosh* you have a ASN size
problem.
Like was already said - loosening the ASN handout rules needs changes
in assignment rules, too. But that's for years to come.
No. Adress space and routing policy are diferent entities. That's why LIRs
don't automagically get an ASN.
Yours,
Elmi.
--
"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
(PLemken,
bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@localhost)
--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE
]---
--
Carlos Morgado - chbm(a)ma.ssive.net - http://chbm.net/0x1FC57F0A FP:0A27
35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
|
|
|
|
