[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 4:23 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor
> 
> 
> 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.

As a starting point, but not all the way through.  
 
> - one-size-fits-all probably isn't useful in the long run.

There doesn't seem to be consensus on this, though those of us
who like CIDR/VLSM seem to agree.

> - host-counts are stupid.

Subnet counts make more sense in IPv6.

> - a strict multi-homing requirement is perfectly reasonable.
> - preexisting IPv4 deployment should qualify you for IPv6 assignment.

Maybe, but not necessarily a direct assignment.

> - the size of the assignment should probably be /48 times the 
> number of sites you have already deployed.

Or plan to deploy in the next t months?

 
> - 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.

That seems a bit odd.  Why this?

Lee


> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>                                 -Bill
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>