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 char...@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.
