[ppml] 2005-1 status

[william(at)elan.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> cja at daydream.com wrote:
>>> I have a question.. with regard to item
>>>
>>>            Have an IPv4 assignment or allocation directly from an
>>> RIR,
>>>            the IANA or legacy registry
>>>
>>>           Qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN
>>> under
>>>            the IPv4 policy currently in effect
>>>
>>> do you really mean an assignment or allocation under ANY policy in
>>> effect?  If an org has a micro allocation from ARIN of some very
>>> small
>>> size they should still qualify for a /44?  I am not passing any
>>> judgement here I am just curious.
>>
>> The main intent was to not require someone to actually request IPv4
>> if they qualify for it.  It was not my intent that micro-allocations
>> would qualify though it appears that they would as currently written.
>>
> If /22 is under 2002-3 is considered microallocation, then, I believe
> such organizations should absolutely qualify.  If we're talking about
> some other microallocation policy, then, we should be careful about
> how we word any changes.

Microallocations for exchange points, root/TLD dns servers and similar
are already available for IPv6 under different micro-allocation policy,
so its not an issue here.

The issue that some seems to have raised is in regards to giving ipv6
micro-allocation blocks to those who received legacy class-c blocks
when those were readily available. I believe its fair to request these
organizations to justify and one of those justification should be if
they are in fact using those legacy blocks in multihomed fashion or not.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net