[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Matthew Kaufman]

William Herrin wrote:
>
> I concur as well. And if we want to hand out addresses for "may be
> connected in the future" instead then they should meet the same
> criteria as the ones for "are connected single-homed now."
>
>   
As long as those criteria cover "plan to soon be multihomed" 
situations... for example, I might be a large corporation preparing to 
deploy IPv6, have 4 IPv4 transit providers, and only one of them can do 
IPv6 today... so clearly when more of my transit providers can do v6, 
I'll be multi-homed. There should be no reason to renumber in this case.

I presume that this is already how it works, just like I can get an AS 
number because I am ordering circuits to (but am not yet present at) an 
exchange point.

Matthew Kaufman