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

[Andrew Dul]

-------Original Message-------
> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites
> Sent: 30 Aug '05 04:56
> 
>  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)
>  

What would people think about making one of the requirements to have an existing v4 end-site allocation from ARIN?  

Andrew