Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Customer AS

  • From: David R. Conrad
  • Date: Wed Aug 21 21:03:50 1996

>> I think I remember the logic behind this.  The end user requests
>> provider independent addresses, insisting that they would sue the
>> registry if they didn't get them.  The draft discourages this and so
>> the registry should discourages this but the draft lets them give in.
>
>Actually, the logic was from multiple ISPs who told us it was imperative
>in certain instances (as noted in the draft) that multi-homed organizations
>be given PI space.  The registries (although I officially speak only for
>InterNIC) continue to discourage multi-homed customers from getting PI 
>space. 
 
Just to make it unanimous for the RRs, APNIC also discourages PI as
much as we're able.  However, with respect to reasoning as to why we
continue to allocate PI space (regardless of whether it is multi-homed
or not), please see RFC 1814.

I would find it really interesting to discover how much of the current
routing table growth is due to newly allocated prefixes getting
announced and how much is the result of a) previously unannounced but
allocated networks being injected or b) entropy resulting from
movement of networks from one provider to another.  In my copious
spare time...

Regards,
-drc
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.