[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

Glenn Wiltse iggy at merit.edu
Tue Nov 1 10:43:15 EST 2005

    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.

   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.

Glenn Wiltse

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:

> So Chris Morrow and Mike Hughes and Thomas Narten and I were talking more
> about this over dinner, and I think the consensus out of that conversation
> was this:
> - an IPv6 direct-assignment policy should be based directly on the ipv4
>  direct-assignment policy, as closely as possible.
> - one-size-fits-all probably isn't useful in the long run.
> - host-counts are stupid.
> - a strict multi-homing requirement is perfectly reasonable.
> - preexisting IPv4 deployment should qualify you for IPv6 assignment.
> - the size of the assignment should probably be /48 times the number of
>  sites you have already deployed.
> - in order to avoid creative interpretation of "sites," no more than one
>  site per metro area should be counted.  That's arbitrary, but it's an
>  objectively-verifiable quantity, which is what's needed for the ARIN
>  analyst staff.
> Thoughts?
>                                -Bill
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list