[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[George Bonser]

> The real problem is if you try to keep the split where there's no such
> thing as PI addresses unless you have some crazy criteria like that
> you're actively multihomed... especially this early in the adoption
> cycle. A Fortune 500 company that wants to get their IPv6 now but
> doesn't intend to actually hook up for another year shouldn't need to
> lie on their application to get the space.

For the reason above, the proposed policy makes sense.  And multihomed
v4 may not mean multihomed v6 as one's upstreams may not support v6. If
this proposal is specifically for unconnected networks who have a clear
intention of connecting the space and given that in many cases there is
no way directly to one's upstream, the connectivity should not be a
requirement.

But I also believe there should also be a block for "never connected"
that has a chance of being unique to the organization.  The most logical
way to do that would be to work with IETF for a formal definition of the
L bit of fc00::/7 space as defined in RFC 4193 to mean "assigned by
registry of unconnected networks" or something to that effect and
generation of another proposal.