"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
ARIN has replied to me privately that two IPv6 tunnels over the same physical link count as "multihoming"; another PPML poster has told me privately he's actually gotten an ASN that way.
IMHO this needs to be corrected, but it doesn't appear to be abused except out of novelty, so it's not a dire emergency.
Now, this is an interesting one. Where would you draw the line for diversity of connections being truly "multihomed"? Here are a few scenarios for your consideration: Commodity MPLS from a third party provider (yes, i know this doesn't exist yet) with one pipe going to two ISPs. 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. Two SONET connections that are physically distinct but enter the customer facility via the same conduit. I'm not so sure that I agree with your implication that justifying an ASN on the basis of two tunnels is "abuse". It might be "poor engineering", "unwise", or "certainly something I would never do", but ARIN policy is intended to apply good stewardship principles, not coerce people's business or engineering plans. We agree that the current level of unconventional registration is likely low. I don't agree that there's anything to "fix" here. By the way, the other way you can justify an ASN is to have a "unique routing policy". What that constitutes is left as an exercise to the reader, but I'm sure that a session in the bar in St. Louis could come up with some really freaky scenarios. Current policy is OK by me. It will be even more OK after 32-bit ASNs are the norm. ---Rob