[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 101: Multihomed initial allocation criteria
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Wed Dec 16 23:41:37 EST 2009
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 20:54, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:51 PM, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone...
>> I have seen virtually no comments regarding this policy. I can't imagine
>> there is a lack of opinion out there...
> Hi Cathy,
> A) Proposal 101 does no harm relative to the rest of existing IPv6 policy.
> B) Proposal 101 is a superficial change to a fundamentally flawed policy.
> C) As it is presently impossible to multihome in IPv6 using a /44
> cutout of an ISP's /32, proposal 101 doesn't make technical sense.
I wrote this in haste and have meant to re-write it since, it really
should read "organization intending to multihome." Every time I go to
re-write it though I bump into your point B and have not taken the
time to really asses what is needed -- I need to jump into the pp103
discussion and wrap my head back around this before attempting the
re-write (or not).
> I decline to support or oppose proposal 101.
> Bill Herrin
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML