nanog mailing list archives
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:54:33 -0800
--On Friday, November 26, 2004 10:09 PM -0800 Fred Baker <fred () cisco com> wrote:
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.
Agreed.
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.
I agree with the first part, but, a /48 is 65,536 64 bit subnets. Do you really think most organizations need more than that? Or, by larger than a /48 did you mean a longer prefix (smaller allocation/assignment)?
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.
Agreed. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6, (continued)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Robert E . Seastrom (Nov 29)
- RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Scott Morris (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Hank Nussbacher (Nov 30)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Nov 30)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Daniel Senie (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI John Kristoff (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Nils Ketelsen (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 25)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Chris Kuethe (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Michael . Dillon (Nov 22)
- Message not available
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 22)