[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments forEnd Sites - revised text

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

On Apr 4, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Howard, W. Lee wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
>> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:34 PM
>> To: Andrew Dul
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI
>> Assignments forEnd Sites - revised text
>>
>> Dear Andrew;
>>
>> A question : it says
>>
>>       6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
>> organization must meet all of the following criteria:
>>
>> <snip>
>>           2. be an end site;
>> <snip>
>>
>> Is "end site" clearly defined somewhere ?
>
> http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six29
>
> 6.2.9. End site
> An end site is defined as an end user (subscriber) who has a business
> relationship with a service provider that involves:
>
> that service provider assigning address space to the end user
> that service provider providing transit service for the end user to
> other sites
> that service provider carrying the end user's traffic.
> that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that
> contains the end user's assignment
>
>
>

As I read this, an end site cannot be multi-homed, so
how can conditions 2 and 3 be simultaneously met ?

          2. be an end site;
          3. be currently multihomed using IPv4;


>
>>
>> A large (or even not so large) corporation may well act as a transit
>> provider to remote corporate locations;
>> I would argue that the entire entity is a end site, no matter how
>> distributed, but I just wanted to make
>> this clear.
>
> An end site is an organization that gets assignments and transit
> from an upstream.  Under this definition, if an organization gets
> an (unaggregatable) PI assignment, it is not an end site.  A
> remote office could be considered to be an end site.
>

So, if a company  has 128 small remote offices, each with a fully  
used internal IPv4 /24 ,
and uses a /20 at HQ, neither it nor its offices would qualify ?

> Lee

Regards
Marshall

>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Marshall Eubanks
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
>>
>>>>  -------Original Message-------
>>>>  From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
>>>>  Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI
>>>> Assignments for End Sites - revised text
>>>>  Sent: 03 Apr '06 15:37
>>>>
>>>>  Andrew,
>>>>
>>>>  This text doesn't seem to match my reading of your proposed
>>>> revisions from
>>>>  your recent message(s).  Can you give us a diff of the changes and
>>>>  rationale for them?
>>>
>>> I added the text to allow a /48 per ASN.  The text is different
>>> than what was originally posted on the list last week.  Thanks to
>>> those in the background who helped cleanup the text.  The
>> intent of
>>> what I proposed last week is unchanged.
>>>
>>> The reserved /44 remains unchanged.  There didn't seem to be any
>>> vocal support for a larger (/40) reserved block.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML mailing list
>>> PPML at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>