Re: Changes to PI Policy?

[leo vegoda <]

Hi Peter,

Peter Gradwell peter@localhost writes:
> At 20:17 15/04/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> > Kurtis has stated that he is worried that the policy requires the
> > RIPE NCC to assign address space that can be "useless". Gert has
> > stated that the concept of PI space is broken.
> The concept of PI space is definitely not broken. There is a
> very real need for organisations, large and small, to be able
> to connect to multiple Internet providers
Multi-homing can be done without PI address space. This is something
we point out to everyone requesting PI address space. The specific
text requesters are sent is:

   1. Why is PI space required rather than PA space?

    -  If PI is requested for multi-homing please explain why the
    second provider cannot route PA space as a more specific
    route (with the PA block holder adding a more specific route
    too).

ARIN actually have a policy just to cover cases like this. "Ratified 
Policy 2001-2: Reassignments to multihomed downstream customers" was 
approved in the ARIN region last year. The core policy sentence is:

   This policy allows a downstream customer's multi-homing requirement
   to serve as justification for a /24 reassignment from their upstream
   ISP, regardless of host requirements."

This is obviously much less convenient for the registrant when changing 
ISPs. It means that they may feel 'tied' to the ISP whose address space 
they use. The setup is likely to be quick(er) and eas(y/ier).

That being said, networks use PI space for a number of reasons. Apart 
from multi-homing, people often state that they just don't want to have 
to renumber if they switch ISP.

Finally, we sometimes get requests from organisations that are creating 
large internets that don't connect to "The Internet". They use unique 
addresses to avoid RFC19181 address clashes.

Have a great holiday weekend, y'all,

--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services