[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Kevin Loch]

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.

Here's the policy I see condensing out of this:

[summary]

   To qualify for a minimum end site assignment of /44 you must either:

   - have an allocation or assignment directly from ARIN (and not a
     legacy allocation or assignment)

   OR

   - meet the qualifications for an IPv4 assignment from ARIN without
     actually requesting one.

   OR

   - be currently connected to two or more IPv6 providers with at least
   one /48 assigned to you by an upstream visible in whois/rwhois.

   Assignment prefixes shorter than the minimum would be based
   on some metric and definition of "sites".

[/summary]

One practical way to look at sites is by number of connections to 
separate upstream provider POPs.

+--------------------------+
| Connections | Assignment |
+-------------+------------+
|         <12 |     /44    |
|       <=192 |     /40    |
|      <=3072 |     /36    |
|       >3072 |     /32    |
+-------------+------------+
(C=0.75 * 2^(48-A))

Or if /56 becomes the new default PA assignment shift the assignment 
sizes right 4 bits.

- Kevin