[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria - revised text
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Feb 20 14:28:28 EST 2007
I'm not sure, but your proposed text seems to limit the usage of this part
of the policy to organizations that ONLY provide IPv6 Internet services, and
may not be the case.
Basically my intend with this proposal is to support those organizations
that aren't "knoww ISPs" (as required by section 184.108.40.206.d). This can fall
into two categories (but may be there are others that I don't see right
1) An organization which want to provide IPv4 and IPv6 services.
2) An organization which only want to provide IPv6 services.
In both cases, seems to me unnecessary to ask for a slow start with *only*
IPv4 to be "known" or have a plan for 200/48 (there may be cases which a
smaller number of customers and there is no need to force that organization
to use a single upstream and get allocated the address space from that
upstream, being forced to stay with that upstream on order to avoid
renumbering of its network and customer ones).
So may be to make sure an alternative option is:
e. OR, be an organization new to providing internet services, and able to
demonstrate intent to advertise the allocated IPv6 space within one year by
showing contracts, inventory, or other documentation.
Will that work for you ? What other people think ?
> De: Martin Hannigan <martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:17:19 -0500
> Para: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>, Martin Hannigan
> <martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs>
> CC: <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation
> criteria - revised text
>>>> e. OR be an organization new to providing internet
>>>> services, and can justify intent to announce the
>> requested >> IPV6 address space within one year, through
>> records such >> as contracts, inventory and/or other
>> applicable >> documentation.
>>> What kind of Internet services?
>> Is there a problem with a broad scope here?
> Yes. The rationale and the change do not compliment
> each other.
> The language of the proposal was also difficult to
> comprehend. I rewrote it to try and give a clearer
> view of what *I think* it was stating:
> e. OR, be an organization new to providing IPV6 internet
> services, and able to demonstrate intent to advertise the
> allocated IPV6 space within one year by showing contracts,
> inventory, or other documentation.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
More information about the ARIN-PPML