[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Lea Roberts]

because, as I'm sure you remember, Bill, the routing table won't scale
over the lifetime of v6

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Bill Darte wrote:

> OK, I'll start....
>
> Why should the criteria for PI in v6 be ANY different than with v4?
> What was large under v4 is somehow not large under v6 apparently?
> Turn in you v4 PI block for a v6 PI block.
>
> That's probably a sufficiently high level argument to begin the discussion.
>
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Lea Roberts
> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:01 PM
> > To: Owen DeLong
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status
> >
> >
> > well, seems like maybe we should talk it out here (again...
> > :-) for a while.  this sounds more like a "PI for everyone"
> > policy.  while I'm sure there's a large number of people who
> > would like that, I still think it's unlikely it can reach consensus...
> >
> > As I said at the meeting in L.A., I still think it is
> > possible to reach consensus for PI assignments for large
> > organizations and I thought that's where we were still headed
> > after the last meeting., i.e. trying to find criteria that
> > the latest round of objectors could live with.
> >
> > let the discussion begin!				/Lea
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > Kevin,
> > > 	Why don't you, Lea, and I take this off line and decide
> > > what to present back to the group.  I apologize for not having
> > > followed up in a more timely manner after the last meeting.
> > >
> > > Owen
> > >
> > > On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Kevin Loch wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > > >> Hello;
> > > >>
> > > >> When last I saw it, 2005-1 was to be reformatted to
> > something more
> > > >> like its original version.
> > > >
> > > > These were my suggestions using feedback from the last meeting:
> > > >
> > > > To qualify for a minimum end site assignment of /44 you
> > must either:
> > > >
> > > >    - have an allocation or assignment directly from ARIN
> > (and not a
> > > >      legacy allocation or assignment)
> > > >
> > > >    OR
> > > >
> > > >    - meet the qualifications for an IPv4 assignment from
> > ARIN without
> > > >      actually requesting one.
> > > >
> > > >    OR
> > > >
> > > >    - be currently connected to two or more IPv6 providers with at
> > > > least
> > > >    one /48 assigned to you by an upstream visible in whois/rwhois.
> > > >
> > > > Assignment prefixes shorter than the minimum would be
> > based on some
> > > > metric and definition of "sites".
> > > >
> > > > One practical way to look at sites is by number of connections to
> > > > separate upstream provider POPs.
> > > >
> > > > +--------------------------+
> > > > | Connections | Assignment |
> > > > +-------------+------------+
> > > > |         <12 |     /44    |
> > > > |       <=192 |     /40    |
> > > > |      <=3072 |     /36    |
> > > > |       >3072 |     /32    |
> > > > +-------------+------------+
> > > > (C=0.75 * 2^(48-A))
> > > >
> > > > Or if /56 becomes the new default PA assignment shift the
> > assignment
> > > > sizes right 4 bits.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Can someone tell me what the status of 2005-1 is currently ?
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know it hasn't changed since the last meeting.
> > > > Obviously it should be updated one way or another.  I
> > would gladly
> > > > write up a formal revision or new proposal if requested.
> > > >
> > > > - Kevin
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
>