dougb at dougbarton.us
Tue Feb 12 00:41:09 CET 2013
On 02/11/2013 03:30 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2013, at 23:01, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
>> Thanks to you and Nick for the update on RIPE. I'm pretty sure ARIN (where almost all of my effort is concentrated nowadays) has a different policy, but that's not central to my argument.
> Should have been more clear here. There was never a requirement for multihoming for ipv4. There was for ipv6 but it was removed recently. It's never been clear to me why there is a divergence in policy between 4/6, but there is.
I didn't say "multihoming" originally, I said "ASN." In the past the
route to multihoming looked like this:
Get PA space from your ISP
Justify your RIR to issue you PI space and ASN (depending on where/how
you applied one or the other could come first, both together, etc.)
Get new ISP(s)
Announce your stuff (i.e., be multihomed)
The fact that we currently have a huge installed base of IPv4 where that
model has been well understood, onto which we are grafting IPv6, which
has different policies itself, and different policies per RIR, can cause
... fun. :)
Thanks also to David Farmer for his update. That matches my current
understanding of ARIN policy ... nice to see I haven't slipped too far.
More information about the ipv6-ops