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

[Kevin Loch]

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Having two tunnels configured with different tunnels providers through 
> a single dsl line would fulfill this requirement?

The tunnel language was included because there is not enough
deployment of native IPv6 throughout the ARIN reigon yet.

There is at least one large provider that offers v6 everywhere
but the chances of a typical enterprise or large content site
getting native v6 over their current v4 providers is fairly slim.

The tunnel requirement is consistent with the way many applicants
would actually use IPv6 in the near term.

> 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

The current v4 policy just says "multi-homed".  It doesn't say anything
about separate physical connections or the speed of the lines.

- Kevin