[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites

[marcelo bagnulo braun]

Hi,

El 29/08/2005, a las 16:17, Member Services escribió:

>
...
> 6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites.
>
>          6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
>                   organization must:
>
>                   a) not be an LIR;
>
>                   b) be an end site;
>
>                   c) be currently multi-homed using IPv6 to two or more
>                      separate LIR's. native connections or statically
>                      configured tunnels may be used to satisfy this
>                      requirement.
>

Having two tunnels configured with different tunnels providers through 
a single dsl line would fulfill this requirement?
I guess this would allow any IPv6 fan to have their own PI prefix 
fairly easily, so i would argue for stronger requirements than this...
At least to be really multihomed, i.e. two different ISPs providing 
different physical connectivity to the end site, similar to IPv4, i 
guess

However, i would even argue to reserve this type of PI based 
multihoming only "big" sites (the problem here would be to define what 
a big site is i am afraid)

regards, marcelo


>                   d) The prefix(es) used by the end site to demonstrate
>                      multihoming must be visible in the ARIN whois
>                      databse or via rwhois as being assigned to the
>                      requesting organization.
>
>          6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to end sites
>
>                   Organizations that meet the direct end site 
> assignment
>                   criteria are eligible to receive a direct assignment 
> of
>                   /48
>
>          6.5.8.3. Subsequent direct assignments to end sites
>
>                   Only one direct assignment may be made to an end site
>                   organization.
>
>                   End sites that require more than 65536 subnets should
>                   request space from an LIR or consider becoming
>                   an LIR.
>
>          6.5.8.4. Migration from end site to LIR
>
>                   A direct end site assignment shall not
>                   disqualify an organization from becoming an LIR and
>                   ceasing to be an end site if it otherwise meets the
>                   requirements for an initial allocation.
>
>                   Organizations receiving an LIR allocation must
>                   renumber into that allocation and return any direct
>                   assignments within 1 year.  Micro allocations made
>                   under section 6.10 are not subject to this 
> requirement.
>
>                   An LIR allocation shall disqualify an organization 
> from
>                   receiving a direct end site assignment unless it
>                   agrees to return all LIR allocations within 1 year.
>                   Micro allocations made under section 6.10 are not
>                   subject to this requirement.
>
> Rationale:
>
>         The lack of provider independent direct assignments is a
>         significant impediment to adoption of IPv6 by enterprises and
>         large content sites. This policy proposal defines clear
>         verifiable requirements for receiving a direct assignment.
>
>         Current IPv6 multi-homing was chosen as the key requirement for
>         the following reasons:
>
>         a) it is reasonable to expect that those reqesting provider
>            independence would be connecting to two or more providers.
>
>         b) the requirement of demonstrating current multi-homing will
>            promote active deployment of IPv6 by those seeking direct
>            assignments.
>
>         It is possible that future technology developments will render
>         this policy unnecessary. At this time there are no viable
>         alternatives for IPv6 provider independence, other than 
> becoming
>         an LIR.
>
>         It is likely that this will help conserve IPv6 address space
>         as most organizations requiring provider independence could
>         easily qualify for an LIR allocation under current policy.
>         Allowing them to apply for the more appropriate /48 is
>         responsible resource management.
>
>         This policy can easily be adapted to increase requirements for
>         direct assignments if future conditions warrant.  For example,
>         the multihoming demonstration requirement could be increased
>         to three or four separate LIR's.  Additional verification
>         of active current multihoming could be used.  Or, as native
>         connectivity becomes widespread the option of tunnel based
>         connections for justification could be removed.
>
>         It is extremely unlikely that this will result in a "land rush"
>         of direct assignments.  The requirements in this policy require
>         more effort than the current requirements for a /32.
>         Alternatively, a large number of applications would be a
>         good sign of sincere IPv6 deployment due to the requirement
>         to be currently multihomed.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediately
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>