[ppml] tying back to 2005-1
lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Fri May 20 15:43:20 EDT 2005
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I'm assuming that the mega-thread "IPv6>>32" and it's threadlets are
> related to the proposed policy 2005-1.
AS Leo has answered... it's his thread, all spun off from his proposal
to shift IPv6 addresses 32 bits to the right (hence >>32 :-). Not alot has
had to do with 2005-1 except occasionally.
> I have a few questions in that context.
I'm sure Owen will answer these, too, but I'll take a cut at it, too.
And remember that 2005-1 did not acheive consensus as proposed
and so it will have to mutate in reponse to the feedback received.
> Is the policy's reference to "minimum size" saying that the
> allocation is to be a prefix of /48?
It says whatever the applicant would be able to receive directly whatever
they would qualify for if receiving space from an LIR. For a single site
organization, that would likely be a /48. For a multi-site applicant,
perhaps they could argue the current policy entitles them to a /48 per
site... certainly alot of the posts in the IPv6>>32 thread have asserted
these "rights" and "requirements".
> "If the organization grows to require more space" - does this mean
> that the organization has hit the HD ratio limit? Does the
> organization have to register all of it's used addresses (SWIP?) to
> indicate this?
> Will such address allocations be "non-aggregatable?" Is the intent
> to allocate these addresses from one segment of address space range
> because of that?
These were considered operational/implementation details that shouldn't
be spelled out in the policy itself... again the assumption was that
whatever criteria an LIR should use would be applied. /Lea
More information about the ARIN-PPML