> > Curtis Villamizar <email@example.com> writes:
> > > In fact, the <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt> draft indicates
> > > that this is one of the few acceptable instances when allocation can be
> > > done by one of the various registries and not by (one of) the upstream
> > > service provider(s). ...
> > draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt is wrong on this one.
> Just for the record: I is one of the few acceptable instances and certainly
> does not represent common practise, to the contrary! All regional IRs
> recommend using address space from one of the providers.
I think I remember the logic behind this. The end user requests
provider independent addresses, insisting that they would sue the
registry if they didn't get them. The draft discourages this and so
the registry should discourages this but the draft lets them give in.
Actually, the logic was from multiple ISPs who told us it was imperative
in certain instances (as noted in the draft) that multi-homed organizations
be given PI space. The registries (although I officially speak only for
InterNIC) continue to discourage multi-homed customers from getting PI space.
Even though I vowed to never touch the draft again or risk being stricken
with the plague - I see your point and will change it to reflect the
paragraph below if my co-authors agree.