[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites
andrew.dul at quark.net
Tue Aug 30 10:11:19 EDT 2005
> 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
> El 29/08/2005, a las 16:17, Member Services escribió:
> > 6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites.
> > 18.104.22.168. 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
> 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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML