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

[Howard, W. Lee]

I should have been explicit about what's authoritative here.

> >> Is "end site" clearly defined somewhere ?
> >
The following, from ARIN's web site, in the IPv6 section of the
Numbering Resource Policy Manual, is official:

> > http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six29
> >
> > 6.2.9. End site
> > An end site is defined as an end user (subscriber) who has 
> a business
> > relationship with a service provider that involves:
> >
> > that service provider assigning address space to the end user
> > that service provider providing transit service for the end user to
> > other sites
> > that service provider carrying the end user's traffic.
> > that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that
> > contains the end user's assignment

[end official excerpt]


> As I read this, an end site cannot be multi-homed, so
> how can conditions 2 and 3 be simultaneously met ?
> 
>           2. be an end site;
>           3. be currently multihomed using IPv4;

 

> >> 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.

The following is one possible reading of the policy, and is in no
way authoritative:

> > An end site is an organization that gets assignments and transit
> > from an upstream.  Under this definition, if an organization gets
> > an (unaggregatable) PI assignment, it is not an end site.  A
> > remote office could be considered to be an end site.
> 
> So, if a company  has 128 small remote offices, each with a fully  
> used internal IPv4 /24 ,
> and uses a /20 at HQ, neither it nor its offices would qualify ?

I couldn't say for sure.  Remember that the excerpt above is in the
IPv6 section of the NRPM, so I'd try to interpret it in that context.

Within the current context of IPv6, there is no policy for 
assignment to end sites.  All IPv6 address assignments under current
policy are allocations (or micro-allocations, which might include 
some non-transit-provider allocations), which is why we have this
proposal before us.

Lee

> Regards
> Marshall
> 
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
>