[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[George Bonser]

> "To qualify as separate sites, locations must either be in separate
> cities and/or metropolitan areas, or if within the same city or
> metropolitan area, each location must have an independent connection
to
> the Internet, each from a different provider."
> 
> Or is that to restrictive?
> 

Maybe a different way of wording it might be:

"or if within the same city or metropolitan area, each location must be
multihomed with unique provider connections appearing in separate
locations" 

which would cover the case with, say, three facilities in a region that
are linked together.  Two of the facilities have internet access but
from two different providers.  The third facility leverages the existing
internet connectivity from the other two.  In other words, the
organization has some backhaul between offices that it leverages to
basically be the ISP for the third location using that infrastructure.

That is actually how we have been putting things together.  If you have
two production facilities in a region with two different data centers
with two different transit providers, and if you link the two together
you can then multihome both.  And if you have an office in the same
region, you toss a link to the office from one or both of the data
centers to serve the office out of that same infrastructure so you
leverage your existing production transit contracts for office use as
well.

In this case the office does not have a connection to a separate
provider so your wording of "each location must have an independent
connection to the Internet" would not apply though the design described
above does fit within the spirit of what you intended (I think).

So basically multiple locations in a region (any number) with shared
infrastructure that has at least two diverse paths to the internet from
separate facilities to separate providers is what you are after, I
think.