Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

--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: