|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Customer AS
In message <[email protected]>, Daniel Karrenberg writes: > > > Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> writes: > > > > In message <[email protected]>, 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. 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|