RE: draft-savola-multi6-asn-pi-01.txt

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

> I've targeted this solution for the biggest corporations, for which
> (IMHO) multiple addresses are a non-starter.

I also think that big institutions will be reluctant to use multiaddressing,
for the comments that i've heard on different lists.


>  Such corporations have AS numbers.  Such corporations don't crop up from
nowhere.

Yes, but many other who are not big sites also have AS numbers. I even know
people who have an AS number at their home network.

So, automatically giving all people who have a AS number today an PI address
block may not be appropriate.

I guess that first we should agree that really big sites won't use
multiaddressing and that they should obtain their own PI block.
Then we need to define the criteria to identify big sites
A finally then decide which addresses we should give them

IMHO, the first decision concerns the IETF
I am not so sure about the second and the third point, perhaps this should
concern the rirs, more than the ietf?

Regards, marcelo



>
> But if folks feel we should just allow everyone, one could just as
> well allow full 16 bits or even 32 bits.  That would just lead to the
> exhaustion of AS numbers, though -- and folks would be worse off than
> before, as also small enterprises would get AS numbers for the "easy
> multihoming ticket".
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>