[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Glenn Wiltse" <iggy at merit.edu>
>    I find the re-working of this proposal as shown here, to be of little
> or no value. It gives no explination of what criteria there would be for
> obtaining more then a /48.

In reviewing the IPv4 policy, I don't see much direction on what is required 
to justify more than the minimum size for an initial end-user v4 allocation, 
and what little there is doesn't seem to apply to v6.  The ARIN staff has a 
lot of discretion in what "justify" means in v4 policies, so I don't see any 
departure from existing practice in using the same word in v6 policy.  Also, 
whereas justification is required in nearly all v4 assignments, it should be 
fairly rare in v6 assignments since the minimum size is already very large.

Also, there is existing policy (6.5.4.2) that explicitly calls out the lack 
of formal criteria for giving end sites more than a /48.  The proposal under 
discussion does no worse than what we already have.

> In general as it relates to this and the earlier version, I object to
> the use of the term 'large/complex end sites', since, the biggest need for
> these types of direct assignments are for multi homed orginizations, not a
> a 'end site'. I belive this policy should be addressing the need of the
> 'large/complex orginzation' that doesn't want to have their IPv6 address
> space directly tied to a ISP/LIR. In my mind, these should not be
> considered 'end sites'.

So if we changed the section heading (which has absolutely no effect on the 
policy) from

   6.5.8. Direct assignments to large/complex end sites

to

   6.5.8. Direct assignments to end-user organizations

this objection would be moot?

6.2.9 defines "end sites" to be synonymous with "end-user organizations", 
even though "site" implies a single physical location.  The idea that 
end-user orgs often have private connectivity between locations is 
consistently missed by the ISP folks here, hence the misleading term.

The "large/complex" modifier is superfluous, but the qualifications are most 
likely to be met by such orgs.

>  Either way, it seems to me we aren't anywhere near consensus on
> this issue, and I don't think this re-work gets us any closer.

You're welcome to float your own proposal on what you think can achieve 
consensus.  I'm sure Kevin will be happy to hear any constructive input you 
have on his draft as well.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin