[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Bill Woodcock]

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