On 2015-02-18 04:47 PM, james machado wrote:
So we argue for a /48 for each home user site but we toss out that
argument when it comes to a smaller business with multiple sites?
I applaud the intent but think it is too short sighted William. It
should take no more routing slots for an aggregated /40 or /44 than
for a /48 and the /40 or /44 are in line with the v6 paradigm that has
been fronted on this list and others.
Given the high demand for IPv6 allocations (*ahem*), the minimum
requirement could easily be eliminated altogether, with relatively
little impact AT THIS TIME as far as I can see.
I think having to justify anything larger than a /48 is reasonable,
otherwise we probably would get people asking for /8s just to camp on them.
I fully agree with the OP's point that not being able to get PI space
represents a business risk, and that business (i.e. 2nd-order financial)
risk does not scale in any way an engineer or scientist would expect.
I have one regional ISP customer who could probably renumber in two
weeks with relatively little impact, whereas I have one large (Fortune
500-sized, but private) multinational enterprise customer who could be
in danger of bankruptcy if they lost one single IPv4 /24.
My point here is that there *is* business risk, sometimes enormous risk,
tied to using non-PI space. As technologists we find this next bit
uncomfortable: there's no formula to predict the level of risk. This
makes writing policy to address it very difficult, but writing policy
that ignores it is worse.
I've been using the multi-homed clause for all the non-SP customers I
work with, so far, since none of them have enough public IP resources to
warrant a direct allocation otherwise. Even in the mid-western Canada
telecom wasteland, it's almost always possible to get two connections...
even if one is a tiny local ISP who doesn't even run BGP or IPv6
themselves, that still satisfies (IIRC) the letter of the NRPM.
(Besides, then there's a reason for that tiny local ISP to improve rapidly.)
This is, unsurprisingly, why I was very unhappy to see the multi-homed
clause vanish from the IPv4 section.
--
-Adam Thompson
[email protected]
+1 (204) 291-7950 - cell
+1 (204) 489-6515 - fax
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
