At 11:54 PM 11/26/04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
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
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 10:29:15PM -0800, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
> The thing that brings me out here is the "one size fits all" reasoning that
> seems to soll around this community so regularly. "Multihoming should
> always use provider-independent addressing" and "Multihoming should always
>
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
So here's my proposal. If you qualify for an AS number (have a reasonable
business plan, clueful IT staff, and a certain number of ISPs one connects
with), you should also be able to be a PI prefix.
And if you don't qualify for that, you should probably go
--On Friday, November 26, 2004 10:09 PM -0800 Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 t
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
> I think the length of the prefix given to a PI edge network should be
> permitted to be larger than a /48 (perhaps a /40 or a /35), but need not be
> as large as is given to an ISP (/30). Willing enough to take the /30, but I
> think the statistics likely d
At 10:09 PM 11/26/04 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
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.
Reading my own email - that isn't clear.
I think the length of the prefix given to a PI edge network shou
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.
IMHO, the
What you really want is PI assignments in IPv6, and you shouldn't be
changing the PA allocation rules or interpretation of these rules so you
can get this under the radar.
I'm not trying to get anything under the RADAR. Yes, I want to see us
modify the policy to cover allocations and assignments,
Anyone starting out will be an end site, if that meant you could only
ever be an end site then there'd be nothing but end sites. Skip to the
not an end site section and meet those requirements instead.
Agreed... However, the letter of the law in the policy still should be
revisited to express that
On 26-nov-04, at 8:43, Owen DeLong wrote:
As such, it appears to be a catch 22. If your organization has transit
and PA space, apparently, as I read the policy, that would preclude you
from qualifying as an LIR without spinning off a separate ORG to do so,
then becoming a customer of that ORG.
I
> An end site is defined as an end user ...
Legal people make a lot from interpreting such documents
so it's best not to stare too long at them.
> As such, it appears to be a catch 22. If your organization has transit
> and PA space, apparently, as I read the policy, that would preclude you
> f
Generally, I don't like to cross-post, but, this is definitely an ARIN
policy
issue, so, I'm sending it to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List as well
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). While I think it is useful to discuss such issues on
NANOG,
the reality is that it is more useful to discuss them on PPML an
Actually, as I read the policy, if you're not assigning /48s to other
organizations, your an END SITE, not an LIR. Please show me where in
the policy it says different.
Sure, I can easily pretend to be the "internal" LIR for the "200 sub-
organizations" which may conveniently map to sites, but, th
Thus spake "Daniel Roesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And as this makes this whole 200-orgs constraint pathetic, there is
> an effort underway (or even already agreed upon?) at least in RIPE
> region, to just scratch it completely.
>
> So it boils down to:
>
> - you're a LIR (== you pay)
> - you will a
On 25-nov-04, at 21:20, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 200 sites. (As you're
"allowed" one /48 per site, and need 200 /48s to get an
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 08:20:01PM +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
>
> On 25/11/2004 17:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
>
> If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
> Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 20
On 25/11/2004 17:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 200 sites. (As you're "allowed"
one /48 per site, and need 200 /48s to get an assig
Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
The policy actually says:
6.5. Policies for allocations and assignments
6.5.1. Initial allocation
6.5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization
must:
a) be an L
--On Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:27 AM +0100 Jeroen Massar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:17 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
The BBC has lots and lots of small regional (and sub-regional) offices
to provide local radio and TV, not to mention their larger operations
like TV
--On Thursday, November 25, 2004 9:59 AM +0100 Jeroen Massar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 08:49 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
On 25/11/2004 08:07, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> It is sourced from AS31459, which is the BBC R&D AS, thus might be
> that it is still sort of experimental,
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 15:04 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> On 25/11/2004 12:42, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> >
> > > - Any of a large variety of companies doing financial transactions
> > > online - (e.g. www.olf.co.uk, they do car finance v
On 25/11/2004 12:42, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
- Any of a large variety of companies doing financial transactions
online - (e.g. www.olf.co.uk, they do car finance via brokers over the
internet)
[snip stuff about various
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:49 -0500, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:27:45AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32 and any
> > organization that has at least quite a number of employees can thus get
> > one. If you are too small,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:27:45AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32 and any
> organization that has at least quite a number of employees can thus get
> one. If you are too small, then you are simply: too small.
>
> Compare it too the followin
On 25/11/2004 12:50, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, in the absense of that particular piece of information, I
have a hard time seeing how the BBC qualifies for a /32. Last time I
checked, they weren't an ISP. 200 sites doesn't qualify you for a /32:
it qualifies you for a /48 (jusst like o
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 13:50 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 25-nov-04, at 10:27, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> >> 200 locations doesn't seem that off to me..
>
> > That is exactly the right way to count ;)
>
> > Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32
>
> Well, apparently RI
On 25-nov-04, at 10:27, Jeroen Massar wrote:
200 locations doesn't seem that off to me..
That is exactly the right way to count ;)
Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32
Well, apparently RIPE thinks they do, so there must be some piece of
information that I'm not privvy to.
Ho
[eek ... html, please don't]
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> I've worked for quite a few smaller companies where Internet access
> for one reason or another is business-critical. Examples would be:
> (I've not worked for all of the companies listed, but I know about
> th
On 25/11/2004 08:59, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 08:49 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
The BBC are probably a bad example in this case, they're more of an
ISP/Content Provider than a typical Enterprise.
Thus do they reach the currently only 'problem rule' th
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:17 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
> The BBC has lots and lots of small regional (and sub-regional) offices
> to provide local radio and TV, not to mention their larger operations
> like TV center, broadcasting house, Pebble Mill and other production
> studios for progr
The BBC has lots and lots of small regional (and sub-regional) offices
to provide local radio and TV, not to mention their larger operations
like TV center, broadcasting house, Pebble Mill and other production
studios for programs like EastEnders. 200 locations doesn't seem that
off to me..
A
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 08:49 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> On 25/11/2004 08:07, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> >It is sourced from AS31459, which is the BBC R&D AS, thus might be
> >that it is still sort of experimental, but it is there.
> >
> >This also proves one big thing to all the people complainin
On 25/11/2004 08:07, Jeroen Massar wrote:
It is sourced from AS31459, which is the BBC R&D AS, thus might be
that it is still sort of experimental, but it is there.
This also proves one big thing to all the people complaining about
getting a TLA. If the BBC can get it, any large organization can ge
Perhaps a Sitcom about the IETF?
(couldn't resist)
Owen
--On Thursday, November 25, 2004 9:07 AM +0100 Jeroen Massar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The following just popped up in the IPv6 Global Routing tables*:
8<-
inet6num: 2001:41c0::/32
net
Hi,
The following just popped up in the IPv6 Global Routing tables*:
8<-
inet6num: 2001:41c0::/32
netname: UK-BBC-20041108
descr:British Broadcasting Corporation
country: GB
->8
35 matches
Mail list logo
