IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Two prefixes [draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC]

Arturo Servin <aservin@lacnic.net> Wed, 08 August 2012 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <aservin@lacnic.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70AC21F8679 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.475, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ylSTmDXBSk+E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [200.7.84.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8867221F8628 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:7939:808a:7478:e7bd] (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:7939:808a:7478:e7bd]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id D056A308465; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:59:29 -0300 (UYT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ADCEBA31-3814-4F59-8304-DFC370D4615C"
From: Arturo Servin <aservin@lacnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <502257A7.7080208@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:59:29 -0300
Message-Id: <4E118319-8D7F-40FC-B966-C7F44963A2F2@lacnic.net>
References: <5F52A5BB-36F7-4CF9-9639-960C65ADFD4E@cisco.com> <CAD6AjGRMQ8o5fVHeWaOanKYomqJ0jArXS-zXm4qQdqacPS0QbA@mail.gmail.com> <5020DEC0.1090601@gmail.com> <1344332397.93146.YahooMailNeo@web32504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAD6AjGSAE3=rcSo2=96qfiY_41Kq8r5cSgC0N1-fbF+msMF0bg@mail.gmail.com> <50211B63.3020203@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1_bADT7cwX9QccRickCYHxqiaDu89Qz7fhbsyZZS6r-Q@mail.gmail.com> <502257A7.7080208@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: aservin@lacnic.net
Cc: Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, V6ops Chairs <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Two prefixes [draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:00:04 -0000

Brian,

	But we are not talking about enterprises, we are talking about ICPs, which IMHO are two different problems and advices.

	For Enterprises, yes PA and PI are debatable (as discussed in many places, many times) and more dependent on the size and type of enterprise, for ICPs I think we are more or less in consensus that PI is more much common (and IMO the recommendation).

	Perhaps, the corner case are "small ICPs" which if they are uni-homed, then PA is fine, if they are multi-homed then BGP+PI should be the recommendation no matter if they are small or large.

Regards,
as

On 8 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> My concern here, as I've already hinted, is publishing advice that is
> valid for the N thousand enterprises that can reasonably expect to get
> a PI prefix but nothing for the N million others that may wish to serve
> up content *and* be multihomed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email