[ppml] Definition of an (IPv6) End Site

[Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)]

Michael,

Let my try to ask the questions a different way.  

First off I don't disagree with you, giving the customer flexibility in
what their business relationship is or how they architect their network is
a good thing.

> In other words, the current policy allows the customer
> to choose. IMHO, this is a good thing. It is not our
> business to tell people how to structure their businesses
> or how to architect their networks.

Is it acceptable Under current ARIN policy (should it be acceptable under
future ARIN policy), if the hardware store wants each of its separate
non-interconnected locations to be a different end-site with its own /48,
but have the business relationship be through a single point of contact?


If the answer to this question is no, then ARIN policy is mandating how
they structure their business relationship given a particular prefered
network architecture or vice versa.  

___Jason

==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:19:49 +0100
> From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Definition of an (IPv6) End Site
> 
> > Since there is only one end-user that has a business relationship with 
> me,
> > would this only qualify as a single end-site, and thus all 100 locations
> > should share a single /48?  Or can I consider each separate network ate
> > each separate location an end-site?  In this case I could assign 100 
> /48s.
> 
> The current policy says that the end-site definition is
> based on the BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. Therefore, if the 
> company chooses to have one unified business relationship
> with you, they get one /48. If they choose to maintain 
> 100 business relationships with you and have 100 bills 
> sent to the 100 separate locations, then they get 100 
> /48 blocks. 
> 
> In other words, the current policy allows the customer
> to choose. IMHO, this is a good thing. It is not our
> business to tell people how to structure their businesses
> or how to architect their networks.
> 
> Now, we could change the policy to mandate how they structure
> their business but I would expect that such a move would
> lead to lawsuits when some of those businesses realize that
> the mandated business structure leads to financial losses.
> 
> 10 years ago, we could make ARIN policies the way we
> wanted them to be under cover of scarcity constraints 
> in IPv4. But now those constraints have gone away, the
> Internet has grown up and become the mission critical
> communications structure for everyone. We no longer are
> free to make policies the way we want to in IPv6. We must 
> now balance the interests of all stakeholders and make
> wise policies, even when that means that our personal
> favorite set of stakeholders does not get all that they
> want. IPv6 does not have the same constraints as IPv6 and
> therefore does not provide ARIN and its policymakers with
> the same protection from scrutiny that was available with
> IPv4.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>