[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Glenn Wiltse]

Yes, however all I'm saying is that there may very well be originzations
with ligitamate needs for PI space that are in a realtively small 
geographic location, yet have lots of ligitamate 'sites' all in that
small area.  I really see no reason to restrict things so that only
orginizations that span larger areas will qualify.

  I agree with the concept that the the size of the block requested and/or 
received should be tied in someway to the number of 'sites' that you have.
I'm just saying restricting one site per 'metro area' is not the right 
thing.

   I guess it's all just another debate about what is a 'site'... and even 
to some extent, how many subnets does a perticular 'site' need. I think 
untill we can all come to consensus on these basic questions, we'll never
get consensus on the bigger picture.

Glenn

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> some below, and jumping in to bill's actual message since I missed the
> original. Keep in mind that I personally think that the 'classfulness'
> being imposed on ipv6 seems bad... It's convenient, but it's just
> wasteful.
>
> On 11/1/05, Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu> wrote:
>>     I'm not at all sure there should be a requirment that the "sites" be
>> one per metro area... or that there be any such restriction per metro
>> area. I supose it depends on how you actualy define 'metro'. Perhaps
>> something better that could be just as easily verified, is that each
>> site must have a unique street address, etc... Perhaps you might think
>> /48 per street address is a bit much, I guess that would depend on how
>> large the building was/is. Maybe a /52 per street address could work.
>>
>
> I think the 'metro area' part was more an effort to say: "It's ok to
> have 1 assignment of $size to each place you want to light a
> connection, but we don't really want to support folks just asking for
> PI 'because'." So making a metro, or location dependent proposition
> seemed reasonable. (for folks with disparate locations and no backside
> network connecting them all together)
>
>>    Either way, I think the one site per metro area is too restrictive,
>> perticularly in the sense that it would pretty much eliminate any direct
>> assignments to originzations that may entirely located in a small
>> geographic area.