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: Kim Hubbard
  • Date: Wed Aug 21 21:06:58 1996

>
 
> 
> In message <199608190722.HAA09446@kantoor.ripe.net>, Daniel Karrenberg writes:
> > 
> >   > Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net> writes:
> >   > 
> >   > In message <199608170146.SAA20928@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
> >   > 
> >   > > In fact, the <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt> draft indicates
> >   > > that this is one of the few acceptable instances when allocation can be
> >   > > done by one of the various registries and not by (one of) the upstream
> >   > > service provider(s). ...
> >   > 
> >   > draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt is wrong on this one.
> > 
> > Just for the record: I is one of the few acceptable instances and certainly
> > does not represent common practise, to the contrary! All regional IRs 
> > recommend using address space from one of the providers. 
> 
> 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.  

Even though I vowed to never touch the draft again or risk being stricken
with the plague - I see your point and will change it to reflect the
paragraph below if my co-authors agree.

Kim


> 
> I still think it would be a better draft if this was more strongly
> discouraged.  In 2.1 (page 5):
> 
>   current:
> 
>        b)  the ISP is multi-homed, that is, it has more than one
>            simultaneous connection to the global Internet and no
>            connection is favored over the other
> 
>    Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs, (non-provider based),
>    are the least likely to be routable across the Internet.
> 
>   suggested:
> 
>        b)  the ISP is multi-homed, that is, it has more than one
>            simultaneous connection to the global Internet, no
>            connection is favored over the other.  This practice, while
>            allowed is strongly discouraged for reasons cited below.
> 
>    Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs, (non-provider
>    based), are the least likely to be routable across the Internet,
>    and cannot be further aggregated at points distant in the topology.
>    The more specific routes associated with an dual homed allocations
>    from a provider aggregate can be dropped at a sufficient distance
>    in the Internet topology.  For example, in most cases, these more
>    specifics can be dropped from routing information provided to
>    another continent with no change in traffic flow if this very large
>    aggregation boundary is successfully implemented.
> 
> >   > If the route comes from one of the providers CIDR blocks, the other
> >   > more specific route can be ignored farther away in the topology.  If
> >   > it is a provider independent address it can't be dropped without
> >   > losing connectivity to it.
> > 
> > Correct.
> > 
> > Daniel
> 
> Consider this a suggestion.  Update the draft at your option.
> 
> Curtis
> 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Discussion Communities


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


Merit Network, Inc.