On 09/18/2011 08:25 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when it was written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
Well that would be a shame in my opinion. When one is boot strapping a network, it's very useful to have an ASN/PI space. Especially for v6. If one starts with a "real" upstream and a multihomed via tunnel, is that really so bad? I don't think it is. I am now very fascinated with the policy around all this. I didn't think my thread would touch off this passionate discussion. I've only gotten a few really useful response (from John/Owen/Roland) which come to think of it, is about what I would expect. I was hoping for more technical responses. Go gripe on the ARIN lists if you really truly want policy changes. I greatly appreciate the clarification of policy and relevant docs etc. Seems really straightforward to me now. Now let's get back to technical / nuts and bolts discussion of building an ISP shall we? -- Charles N Wyble charles@knownelement.com @charlesnw on twitter http://blog.knownelement.com Building alternative,global scale,secure, cost effective bit moving platform for tomorrows alternate default free zone.