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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dennis Lundström
dennis at gippnet.com
Mon May 21 12:56:58 CEST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Well I suggest you contact the RIPE-NCC about this. There might be a way around this issue Without lying thru your teeth on the 2-year application form. If you get a green light from a hostmaster. I guess you can refer to that conversation to your ISP/LIR putting in your requests. However this is most likely NOT the correct procedure for application. Best regards! - --Dennis Lundström GippNET AB AS34537 On 18 maj 2007, at 20.14, Knight, Brian wrote: > 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). > ###################################################################### > ############### > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGUXr6sqJZaeZjsn8RAoV4AJ9RyXCYO1upM4Oj9py7An0t/qNgEgCfQzq7 JCgh/pbxBy+Z3TsDIRBQzTE= =z5YP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]