[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ppml] [GLOBAL-V6] Re: Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Commodity Frame Relay or ATM with two DAFs entering the
facility, but
an inspection of the DLRs for the PVCs shows that they both
traverse
the same switch.
Two SONET connections that are groomed onto the same OC48.
We know that separacy of circuits is subject to change due to
the widespread use of switches (DACS, ATM, Ethernet) and the
widespread telecom practice of grooming customer circuits
over time. It is hard work to ensure that true separacy
exists when it is needed to meet customer contract conditions.
Empirically, I would say that it is impossible to be sure. I have
heard too many stories of a {fire, collision, back hoe, etc.} taking
down
two circuits that were supposed to be geographically separated, or
circuits
that weren't supposed to be going that way at all.
If the people charged with doing this can't be sure, how can ARIN ?
Given this, I think it would be unwise to specify the degree
of separacy in an ARIN policy. It would be almost impossible to
enforce such a provision even if you restrict it to new
applications. And even then, anyone can comply to get their
ASN and PI block, then go back to the pair of IPv6 tunnels
for the long haul.
ARIN policy has always had to strike a balance. We are not
lawmakers or law enforcers.
I would agree.
Regards
Marshall
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML@arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
