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

[Owen DeLong]

Essentially, as I understand it, and end-site is an organization or
autonomous system which does not provide transit (does not accept
packets from one AS and forward them to other AS(es)).

For IP Policy purposes, I believe the RFCs or NRPM (don't remember which
at the moment) define end-site as an IP address consumer who is not an
[RL]IR.

Owen

--On April 4, 2006 7:23:56 AM -0500 billd at cait.wustl.edu wrote:

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



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060404/d03f53c3/attachment.sig>