[ipv6-wg] Re: IPv6 PI

On 21 Nov 2005 16:27:02, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> lea.roberts at stanford.edu (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 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE
> ]---
> 

-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(a)ma.ssive.net - http://chbm.net/0x1FC57F0A FP:0A27  
35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A