Re: Clarification on APNIC-063 (apnic-talk)
Hi,
>1. The confederation members are granted portable space, aren't they?
> Is it correct that each confederation member will get space aligned
> on /19 boundaries to meet today's portability requirements?
Yes. We will delegate (# of confederation members * /19) to the
confederation.
>2. What if a given ISP has a reason to have 2 or more independent
> allocations? For example, it needs 2 independent /19 networks
> that will have distinct routing policies, say, over different
> upstream links. But, it does not want to use provider-assigned
> space since in case of line failure, it wants to switch routing
> over to the other line.
In that case, the organization is considered to be 2 members.
> Can it treat itself as 2 ISPs and have two memberships in the
> confederation in order to achieve this?
Yes. APNIC treats this way for non-confederation memberes as well.
>3. What is the block reserved for portable assignments? 202/7?
We are allocating from 202/7 for new members. However, if the
block requested is large, we allocate from 210/8 as well because
202/7 block is highly fragmented. At this point, we are not
allocating from 211/8 at all.
Regards,
Yoshiko -APNIC hostmaster
----------------
>Thanks in advance!
>
>
>5.1 Confederations and Address Assignments
>
>APNIC strongly recommends against the assignment of addresses to
>non-ISP organizations. Assignment of such address space must, by
>definition, be portable, thus routing entries must be created globally
>if that address space is to be routed on the Internet. As Internet
>service providers are taking steps to limit the number of prefixes
>entered into their routing tables, it is possible that any portable
>address space assigned by a confederation will get filtered out of
>specific Internet service providers' routers.
>
>APNIC encourages all confederations to forward any portable assignment
>requests to APNIC. APNIC will allocate such requests from a block
>reserved for portable assignments. As with all portable assignments,
>APNIC will explicitly state that routability of the assigned addresses
>is no way insured and that the organization should obtain addresses
>from their provider if at all possible.
>
>
>--
>miguel a.l. paraz <map at iphil dot net> +63-2-750-2288
>iphil communications, makati city, philippines <http://www.iphil.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>| To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
_________________________________________________________________________
| To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+