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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 08/08/2012 15:59, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> 	But we are not talking about enterprises, we are talking about ICPs, which IMHO are two different problems and advices.

To be clear, I intended to talk about either pure specialised ICPs, or an enterprise that
wishes to behave as an ICP for its own content.

> 	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.

But that's the case that doesn't scale to millions. Are you suggesting that
we have to tell them "you can't serve your own content reliably, because
you're too small"?

    Brian

> 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.
> 
>