[ppml] Definition of an (IPv6) End Site

[Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO]

Folks:
   I don't exactly buy into the BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP driving what a
site is.   I would think that each of the 100 stores getting it's own
/48 is one of potentially many valid interpretation of what is a site.
This interpretation makes more or less sense depending on other things,
like:  Is there a private network (virtual or not) between store, are
these franchised, etc.
   Do we all need to buy into the same interpretation under all
circumstances?  Or do we just need to agree that a given interpretation
is a valid one?

Joe Houle

 
-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net)
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:52 AM
To: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Definition of an (IPv6) End Site

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
> 

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