Hello, I am writing to voice support for proposal 2006-05, which would change assignment criteria for end-users requesting PI addressing for multihoming. I have recently found myself in a situation which, I believe, this policy proposal directly addresses. I work for an end-user organization which does business internationally. Though I myself am based in the US, I am also responsible for an office in the UK. This UK office has its own established network that connects independently to the Internet. We ordered connectivity from a second provider with the intention of multihoming with both connections, only to find out that both service providers *require* us to obtain and use PI space in order to do so. Neither provider will deaggregate space from their own assigned PA ranges for us to announce, which, in my experience, is something that US providers will often do for their customers. Our London-based network is rather small, and it does not, by itself, presently meet the address usage requirements for a /24 assignment, the longest commonly-accepted prefix size. However, the services that we provide over the Internet are business-critical, and they are the reason we intend to multihome. Being that this was my first time arranging multihoming with UK service providers, I wondered if this requirement for PI space to multihome was an exceptional case in the provider marketplace. But after a post to the UKNOF mailing list, it seems that the requirement is quite commonplace. We are currently pursuing other avenues of obtaining PI addressing, but had the proposed changes been in effect, we would be operational with both providers by now. Due to providers' requirement for PI space to multihome, the present policy unfairly restricts the end-users who may multihome only to those that can justify the space. Regards, -Brian Knight Sr. Network Engineer Mizuho Securities USA, Futures Division http://www.mizuhosecurities.com/ * Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself. ----------------------------------------- ##################################################################################### CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail, including its contents and attachments, if any, are confidential. It is neither an offer to buy or sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any securities or any related financial instruments mentioned in it. If you are not the named recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete it. You may not disseminate, distribute, or forward this e-mail message or disclose its contents to anybody else. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright and any other intellectual property rights in its contents are the sole property of Mizuho Securities USA Inc. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should check this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. We make no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our customers and business, we may monitor and read e-mails sent to and from our server(s). #####################################################################################
As you chose to include the attached disclaimer I am not allowed to understand your problem or to answer with regard to your "problem"... Best regards, Wilfried. <quote> * Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself. </quote> Wondering what your very personal problem is regarding this issue? ..... Knight, Brian wrote: [....]
* Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself. ----------------------------------------- ##################################################################################### CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail, including its contents and attachments, if any, are confidential. It is neither an offer to buy or sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any securities or any related financial instruments mentioned in it. If you are not the named recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete it. You may not disseminate, distribute, or forward this e-mail message or disclose its contents to anybody else. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright and any other intellectual property rights in its contents are the sole property of Mizuho Securities USA Inc. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should check this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. We make no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our customers and business, we may monitor and read e-mails sent to and from our server(s). #####################################################################################
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Well I suggest you contact the RIPE-NCC about this. There might be a way around this issue Without lying thru your teeth on the 2-year application form. If you get a green light from a hostmaster. I guess you can refer to that conversation to your ISP/LIR putting in your requests. However this is most likely NOT the correct procedure for application. Best regards! - --Dennis Lundström GippNET AB AS34537 On 18 maj 2007, at 20.14, Knight, Brian wrote:
Hello,
I am writing to voice support for proposal 2006-05, which would change assignment criteria for end-users requesting PI addressing for multihoming.
I have recently found myself in a situation which, I believe, this policy proposal directly addresses. I work for an end-user organization which does business internationally. Though I myself am based in the US, I am also responsible for an office in the UK. This UK office has its own established network that connects independently to the Internet.
We ordered connectivity from a second provider with the intention of multihoming with both connections, only to find out that both service providers *require* us to obtain and use PI space in order to do so. Neither provider will deaggregate space from their own assigned PA ranges for us to announce, which, in my experience, is something that US providers will often do for their customers.
Our London-based network is rather small, and it does not, by itself, presently meet the address usage requirements for a /24 assignment, the longest commonly-accepted prefix size. However, the services that we provide over the Internet are business-critical, and they are the reason we intend to multihome.
Being that this was my first time arranging multihoming with UK service providers, I wondered if this requirement for PI space to multihome was an exceptional case in the provider marketplace. But after a post to the UKNOF mailing list, it seems that the requirement is quite commonplace.
We are currently pursuing other avenues of obtaining PI addressing, but had the proposed changes been in effect, we would be operational with both providers by now. Due to providers' requirement for PI space to multihome, the present policy unfairly restricts the end-users who may multihome only to those that can justify the space.
Regards,
-Brian Knight Sr. Network Engineer Mizuho Securities USA, Futures Division http://www.mizuhosecurities.com/
* Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself. ----------------------------------------- ###################################################################### ############### CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail, including its contents and attachments, if any, are confidential. It is neither an offer to buy or sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any securities or any related financial instruments mentioned in it. If you are not the named recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete it. You may not disseminate, distribute, or forward this e-mail message or disclose its contents to anybody else. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright and any other intellectual property rights in its contents are the sole property of Mizuho Securities USA Inc. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should check this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. We make no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our customers and business, we may monitor and read e-mails sent to and from our server(s). ###################################################################### ###############
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGUXr6sqJZaeZjsn8RAoV4AJ9RyXCYO1upM4Oj9py7An0t/qNgEgCfQzq7 JCgh/pbxBy+Z3TsDIRBQzTE= =z5YP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dennis,
From: Dennis Lundström <dennis@gippnet.com> To: "Knight, Brian" <Brian.Knight@us.mizuho-sc.com> CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well I suggest you contact the RIPE-NCC about this. There might be a way around this issue Without lying thru your teeth on the 2-year application form.
I followed up with RIPE NCC as suggested They replied that no exceptions could be made, nor did they have any other suggestions for obtaining this space. Thanks very much for your suggestion, though. -Brian
If you get a green light from a hostmaster. I guess you can refer to that conversation to your ISP/LIR putting in your requests.
However this is most likely NOT the correct procedure for application.
Best regards!
- --Dennis Lundström GippNET AB AS34537
On 18 maj 2007, at 20.14, Knight, Brian wrote:
Hello,
I am writing to voice support for proposal 2006-05, which would change assignment criteria for end-users requesting PI addressing for multihoming.
[remainder deleted]
participants (4)
-
Brian Knight -
Dennis Lundström -
Knight, Brian -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet