[ppml] 2005-1 status
christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 02:05:08 EST 2006
On 1/24/06, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> > I see no reason why the assignment policies
> > should be different and I see a strong demand for multi-homing.
> Agreed, with the exception that I'd like to see a small block allocated
> for swamp prefixes.
So, basically... decide on some bit boundary for 'small site'
(non-provider) PI assignments (call it /44 for arguements sake), and
chop those out of some /16 (again /16 for arguement sake) of v6?
Everyone gets to decide to accept /44's from this /16 and <=/32 from
all other v6 space?
Then decide what requirements would have to be met for v6 PI
assignment, and why that should be any different than the policies for
In my opinion, there will be a need, in the short-term atleast, for PI
space. There are plenty of folks (22k or so in the route table today)
that are using PI and an ASN and BGP. Is ownership/use of an ASN
qualification enough? The last policy (2005-1 I believe) had some
wording about 'size' (100k devices it was?) Does that need to exist?
Or, how should you quanitfy site size?
More information about the ARIN-PPML