[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Tue Aug 30 13:47:42 EDT 2005
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:11:19 +0000
"Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> -------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?
>
As a means of relaxing the criteria, sure.
However, if some all v6 organization comes to ARIN, they shouldn't be turned away.
Regards
Marshall
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list