[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites - revised text

[billd at cait.wustl.edu]

I'm not aware of a 'sanctioned' definition of end-site.

I would suggest that it implies that the organization's network is not used
to provide for-fee transit to other networks not under their own management.
In addition, depending upon architecture and communication strategy, an
organization might choose to deem a particular element of it's distributed
network a separate end-site, or consider the entire distributed
infrastructure a single end-site.

Bill Darte



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:34 PM
> To: Andrew Dul
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI 
> Assignments for End Sites - revised text
> 
> 
> Dear Andrew;
> 
> A question : it says
> 
>       6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, 
> an organization must meet all of the following criteria:
> 
> <snip>
>           2. be an end site;
> <snip>
> 
> Is "end site" clearly defined somewhere ?
> 
> A large (or even not so large) corporation may well act as a transit  
> provider to remote corporate locations;
> I would argue that the entire entity is a end site, no matter how  
> distributed, but I just wanted to make
> this clear.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks
> 
> On Apr 3, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> 
> >>  -------Original Message-------
> >>  From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
> >>  Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI
> >> Assignments for End Sites - revised text
> >>  Sent: 03 Apr '06 15:37
> >>
> >>  Andrew,
> >>
> >>  This text doesn't seem to match my reading of your proposed
> >> revisions from
> >>  your recent message(s).  Can you give us a diff of the changes and
> >>  rationale for them?
> >
> > I added the text to allow a /48 per ASN.  The text is different
> > than what was originally posted on the list last week.  Thanks to  
> > those in the background who helped cleanup the text.  The 
> intent of  
> > what I proposed last week is unchanged.
> >
> > The reserved /44 remains unchanged.  There didn't seem to be any
> > vocal support for a larger (/40) reserved block.
> >
> > Andrew
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>