This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
- Previous message (by thread): AW: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Knight, Brian
Brian.Knight at us.mizuho-sc.com
Fri May 18 20:14:33 CEST 2007
Hello, I am writing to voice support for proposal 2006-05, which would change assignment criteria for end-users requesting PI addressing for multihoming. I have recently found myself in a situation which, I believe, this policy proposal directly addresses. I work for an end-user organization which does business internationally. Though I myself am based in the US, I am also responsible for an office in the UK. This UK office has its own established network that connects independently to the Internet. We ordered connectivity from a second provider with the intention of multihoming with both connections, only to find out that both service providers *require* us to obtain and use PI space in order to do so. Neither provider will deaggregate space from their own assigned PA ranges for us to announce, which, in my experience, is something that US providers will often do for their customers. Our London-based network is rather small, and it does not, by itself, presently meet the address usage requirements for a /24 assignment, the longest commonly-accepted prefix size. However, the services that we provide over the Internet are business-critical, and they are the reason we intend to multihome. Being that this was my first time arranging multihoming with UK service providers, I wondered if this requirement for PI space to multihome was an exceptional case in the provider marketplace. But after a post to the UKNOF mailing list, it seems that the requirement is quite commonplace. We are currently pursuing other avenues of obtaining PI addressing, but had the proposed changes been in effect, we would be operational with both providers by now. Due to providers' requirement for PI space to multihome, the present policy unfairly restricts the end-users who may multihome only to those that can justify the space. Regards, -Brian Knight Sr. Network Engineer Mizuho Securities USA, Futures Division http://www.mizuhosecurities.com/ * Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself. ----------------------------------------- ##################################################################################### CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail, including its contents and attachments, if any, are confidential. It is neither an offer to buy or sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any securities or any related financial instruments mentioned in it. If you are not the named recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete it. You may not disseminate, distribute, or forward this e-mail message or disclose its contents to anybody else. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright and any other intellectual property rights in its contents are the sole property of Mizuho Securities USA Inc. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should check this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. We make no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our customers and business, we may monitor and read e-mails sent to and from our server(s). #####################################################################################
- Previous message (by thread): AW: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]