Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

"Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com> writes:

> Large enterprises are exactly the opposite:  they're not in the business
> of carrying bits, as that's what they pay the service providers for.
> They pay service providers, in essence, for "cold potato" routing.  So,
> in the IPv4 model today, enterprise <x>, headquartered in the US,
> applies to ARIN for address space.  They're granted a /14.  This
> enterprise, divided into 4 regions, wants traffic for their EMEA region
> to be delivered to their EMEA attachment point; the US region to the US
> attachment point; and so on.  So, they break the /14 up into chunks,
> assigning a /15 to the largest region, a /16 to a medium-sized region,
> and a /17 to each of the smaller regions.

I think this sort of discussion is needed as part of figuring out how
to deal with large (end site) organizations  that need more than a
/48. In some cases, giving them a single large allocation makes sense
(i.e, if they intend to have a single Internet connect). But if they
are global and want to connect in multiple places, giving them muliple
/48s, each obtained from an appropriate upstream, *might* well make
more sense.

Thus, I think we aren't quite ready to right down what the policy
should be. (Hence, my argument for not having the current document try
to address the point in detail.)

Thomas
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net