[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
steve at ibctech.ca
Tue Jan 19 18:40:54 EST 2010
David Farmer wrote:
> George Bonser wrote:
>>> However, I think some kind of qualification of multiple sites is
>>> necessary. I think two offices across town from each other with 10
>>> each and that share a common connection to the Internet probably
>>> shouldn't qualify for two /48s. I'm thinking of language something
>>> "To qualify as a separate sites, locations must either be in separate
>>> cities and/or metropolitan areas, or if within the same city or
>>> metropolitan area to be considered separate sites each site must have
>>> independent connection to the Internet."
>>> So if you had two sites in different metro areas or two sites in the
>>> same metro area but each has a separate connection to the Internet
>>> two /48s are justified.
>>> Is that reasonable?
>> Provided that you mean the separate connections are also to separate
>> providers, yes.
> Yea probably that too, good catch. So how about;
> "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?
> So that would be a /48 per city with an additional /48 per site within a
> city that has a different internet provider.
> So if you have a network connecting locations in each of Denver,
> Houston, and Atlanta, 2 locations in LA with different Internet
> providers for each, 2 locations in Chicago with the same Internet
> provider, and 3 sites in NYC, 2 with the same Internet provider and 1
> with a different Internet provider, would count as a total of 8 - /48
> sties or a /45 assignment instead of the 10 locations with a /44
That math is more confusing to me than it was to decide on a numbering
scheme for my /32...
I guess the accountants are going to be looking after this then?
More information about the ARIN-PPML