5 Jun
2012
5 Jun
'12
1:39 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0700, Don Fanning wrote:
I guess that's where the rub is then.
I've been going through all the hurtles about getting my own IPv6 space and
having redundant network paths so technically I would be a new ISP. Even
hosting/service providers (not resellers) have to get their own ASN's
separate from the ISP (if they're multihomed with different ISP providers).
As for 44net needing an ASN, right now it's being advertised through UCSD
so technically it already has one. If the rebuild is done correctly,
trusted core routers/isp's will join UCSD in becoming the "core" for 44net
and if UCSD were to be removed from the picture it should still work on the
new core network.
I was wondering how that worked for LEGACY. But
isn't it sort of a
chicken/egg issue? If you have an ASN , you can advertise 44/8. But if
you don't, you have to meet the current ARIN standards? So really it's
just the legal aspect that needs to be addressed so that the delegates
aren't permanently transferred when delegated.
I believe the question of getting an ASN only comes up when a new peer
comes on
line (for example, a new ISP that has or plans to have multiple upstream
NSPs).
Since it is likely that all delegations will be done via existing service
providers, I think we don't need our own ASN at this time.
- Brian