[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of George Bonser
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:03 PM
> To: David Farmer
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
> 
> > "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.
> 

My take on this is that who the different sites have for a provider is not as important as the routing policy.  Perhaps 'irreconcilable routing policies' might be a better discriminator.  

It is very possible for one company to have two sites within a community served by a single provider, and each site requires completely disparate routing and has separate responsible administrators and technical staff.  In that case shouldn't the two sites be running out of separate IP spaces?

On the other hand one company might have two sites running in two different communities through the same provider with a common routing policy.  These two sites could use a common IP space.  My company provides connectivity all across the eastern part of our state.  Insurance companies, hospitals and farms commonly have satellite premises in different communities that could route as a single unit.  (FWIW farms nowadays are technically advanced big businesses)

I don't see that (community AND provider) is functional as a determiner. Perhaps (community AND provider AND POC) would work.