Yes we did... Like when Cisco started rolling out 1.1.1.1 to Wireless Controllers and other things.
...Skeeve On Friday, February 27, 2015, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > Here's a quote from an even OLDER RFC which hasn't stood the test of time. > > - Large organizations like banks and retail chains are > switching to TCP/IP for their internal communication. Large > numbers of local workstations like cash registers, money > machines, and equipment at clerical positions rarely need > to have such connectivity. > > Thing is though that we haven't tossed out the rest of RFC1918 just > because some of it didn't age well. > > > > -- > Dean Pemberton > > Technical Policy Advisor > InternetNZ > +64 21 920 363 (mob) > d...@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:;> > > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Aftab Siddiqui > <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > On a side note.. Since RFC1930 has already been quoted couple of times > here > > as the Best Current Practice even valid today.. > > > > an excerpt > > > > "BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS > > routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, > > which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see > > [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the > RDI, or > > Routing Domain Identifier." > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > >> > >> It did say "immediate future". > >> I would say that it seems reasonable that if you're claiming that > >> you're going to multihome in the "immediate future" that you would > >> know the ASNs with whom you were going to peer. > >> > >> If it was more of a "Well at some point we might want to multihome", > >> then you might not know the ASN. But in those situations RFC1930 says > >> that you should be using a private AS until such time as you are > >> closer to peering. > >> > >> Dean > >> -- > >> Dean Pemberton > >> > >> Technical Policy Advisor > >> InternetNZ > >> +64 21 920 363 (mob) > >> d...@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:;> > >> > >> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui > >> <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > Hi Guangliang, > >> > > >> >> > >> >> The option "b" is acceptable. > >> >> > >> >> b. If an applicant can demonstrate a plan to be multihomed in > >> >> immediate future, it is not a must they are physically > multihomed > >> >> at the time of submitting a request > >> > > >> > > >> > But even then applicant has to provide the details of those ASN with > >> > whom > >> > they may or may not multhome in future. right? > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui > >> > > >> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > >> > * > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > sig-policy mailing list > >> > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <javascript:;> > >> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > >> > > > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <javascript:;> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > -- ...Skeeve (from an iPhone 6 Plus)
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
