Re: [ppml] Re: Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

Hmmm, not all. This was only delayed by 8 minutes, which was reasonable.

But something strange is still going on...

Regards


On Apr 23, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> If we can't stop people from cross posting, can someone please fix  
> the GLOBAL-V6 server ?
> This message was 2 days 11 hours 3 minutes in delivery. They are  
> all delayed by similar amounts.
>
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks
>
> On Apr 21, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stephen Sprunk" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> ARIN has replied to me privately that two IPv6 tunnels over the same
>>> physical link count as "multihoming"; another PPML poster has  
>>> told me
>>> privately he's actually gotten an ASN that way.
>>>
>>> IMHO this needs to be corrected, but it doesn't appear to be  
>>> abused except
>>> out of novelty, so it's not a dire emergency.
>>
>> Now, this is an interesting one.  Where would you draw the line for
>> diversity of connections being truly "multihomed"? Here are a few
>> scenarios for your consideration:
>>
>>    Commodity MPLS from a third party provider (yes, i know this  
>> doesn't
>>    exist yet) with one pipe going to two ISPs.
>>
>>    Commodity Frame Relay or ATM with two DAFs entering the  
>> facility, but
>>    an inspection of the DLRs for the PVCs shows that they both  
>> traverse
>>    the same switch.
>>
>>    Two SONET connections that are groomed onto the same OC48.
>>
>>    Two SONET connections that are physically distinct but enter the
>>    customer facility via the same conduit.
>>
>> I'm not so sure that I agree with your implication that justifying an
>> ASN on the basis of two tunnels is "abuse".  It might be "poor
>> engineering", "unwise", or "certainly something I would never do",  
>> but
>> ARIN policy is intended to apply good stewardship principles, not
>> coerce people's business or engineering plans.  We agree that the
>> current level of unconventional registration is likely low.  I don't
>> agree that there's anything to "fix" here.
>>
>> By the way, the other way you can justify an ASN is to have a "unique
>> routing policy".  What that constitutes is left as an exercise to the
>> reader, but I'm sure that a session in the bar in St. Louis could  
>> come
>> up with some really freaky scenarios.
>>
>> Current policy is OK by me.  It will be even more OK after 32-bit  
>> ASNs
>> are the norm.
>>
>>                                         ---Rob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> global-v6 mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6