[arin-ppml] Proposal 159 - IPv6 Subsequent Allocations

[Owen DeLong]

While you do contextually define "Tie down" in the revised language with the shepherds, it's not a term
that is defined anywhere else in the NRPM, I think my proposal may offer greater clarity and less
confusion.

However, I think either is an adequate alternative so I will leave it to your collective judgments.

Owen



On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote:

> While working with my shephards we came up with:
> 
> "Tie down blocks otherwise known as aggregate allocations, for the purpose of assignment to customers; shall be co
> nsidered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from aggre
> gate assignment pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered utilized for subsequent allocation
> s once the first /48 is assigned from the /36)." 
> 
> Would you agree with the above rewrite or still suggest the below?
> 
> Cheers,
> Aaron
> 
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:38:24PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I would like to suggest the following modifications to the language for this proposal:
>> 
>> 2.16 Utilized (IPv6)
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> 3. Blocks Allocated to Serving Sites shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first provider assignment unit from the block is assigned to an external end-site. (e.g. a /36 allocation to a Serving Site with a provider assignment unit of /48 will be considered utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned to a customer from that /36.)
>> 
>> I believe this clarifies the meaning intended in the proposal and uses terms already present and defined in the NRPM rather than creating a new term (tie down).
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> -- 
> 
> Aaron Hughes 
> President & Chief Technology Officer
> aaron at 6connect.com
> +1-408-329-6901 (Main)
> +1-831-824-4161 (Direct)
> 6connect, Inc. - Next Generation Network Automation
> http://6connect.com/