[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size

Wilfried,

Though you yourself were not mentioned by name in the email, you are a 
member of the mailing list which was a named recipient in the original 
email.  I imagined that, by the virtue of your list membership, you would be 
privy to its contents.  However I can easily see where one may interpret the 
disclaimer much more narrowly.

In any case, below please find a re-posting of my comments made from my 
other email account, sans disclaimer.  Apologies to all for the initial 
noise.

Regards,

-Brian Knight

-------------------------------------------------------------

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


>From: "Knight, Brian" <Brian.Knight at us.mizuho-sc.com>
>To: <port27910 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: FW: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
>Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:04:16 -0400
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
>[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber,
>UniVie/ACOnet
>Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:05 PM
>To: Knight, Brian
>Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
>
>As you chose to include the attached disclaimer I am not allowed to
>understand your problem or to answer with regard to your "problem"...
>
>Best regards,
>Wilfried.
>
><quote>
>* Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself.
></quote>
>
>Wondering what your very personal problem is regarding this issue? .....
>
>Knight, Brian wrote:
>
>[....]
> > * 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).
> > ######################################################################
> > ###############
> >
> >