[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:
> 
I am going to number these to reference them:

1
> - an IPv6 direct-assignment policy should be based directly on the ipv4
>   direct-assignment policy, as closely as possible.

2
> - one-size-fits-all probably isn't useful in the long run.

3
> - host-counts are stupid.

4
> - a strict multi-homing requirement is perfectly reasonable.

5
> - preexisting IPv4 deployment should qualify you for IPv6 assignment.

6
> - the size of the assignment should probably be /48 times the number of
>   sites you have already deployed.

7
> - 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.
> 
> Thoughts?

I don't see a need for point 1. Point 2 is a subset of 6. Point 3 is really
introductory text as to why 1 is irrelevant. Maybe 4 & 5 should be combined
as 'pre-existing IPv4 multi-homing' is one way to demonstrate compliance. A
better way to handle 7 would be to define 6 in terms of multi-party BGP
peering points. 

Tony