[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor
Bill Woodcock wrote:
> So Chris Morrow and Mike Hughes and Thomas Narten and I were talking more
> about this over dinner, and I think the consensus out of that conversation
> was this:
> - an IPv6 direct-assignment policy should be based directly on the ipv4
> direct-assignment policy, as closely as possible.
> - one-size-fits-all probably isn't useful in the long run.
> - host-counts are stupid.
> - a strict multi-homing requirement is perfectly reasonable.
> - preexisting IPv4 deployment should qualify you for IPv6 assignment.
> - the size of the assignment should probably be /48 times the number of
> sites you have already deployed.
> - in order to avoid creative interpretation of "sites," no more than one
> site per metro area should be counted. That's arbitrary, but it's an
> objectively-verifiable quantity, which is what's needed for the ARIN
> analyst staff.
Here's the policy I see condensing out of this:
To qualify for a minimum end site assignment of /44 you must either:
- have an allocation or assignment directly from ARIN (and not a
legacy allocation or assignment)
- meet the qualifications for an IPv4 assignment from ARIN without
actually requesting one.
- be currently connected to two or more IPv6 providers with at least
one /48 assigned to you by an upstream visible in whois/rwhois.
Assignment prefixes shorter than the minimum would be based
on some metric and definition of "sites".
One practical way to look at sites is by number of connections to
separate upstream provider POPs.
| Connections | Assignment |
| <12 | /44 |
| <=192 | /40 |
| <=3072 | /36 |
| >3072 | /32 |
(C=0.75 * 2^(48-A))
Or if /56 becomes the new default PA assignment shift the assignment
sizes right 4 bits.