[arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Pleasedon't me make do ULA + NAT66)

[Gary T. Giesen]

Just for clarification, the resulting /40 will be announced as a single prefix. In *theory* it could be announced as its constituent /48's, but since the customer is not multihomed there is not a lot of incentive to do so (and if the customer was multihomed they would qualify under 6.5.8.1b anyways).

I came up with 13 based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which specifies that 13 sites (which is more than 75% of a /44 and thereby qualifies the customer for a /40). 

GTG

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: February-17-15 3:48 PM
To: David Huberman; mcr at sandelman.ca; Gary T. Giesen
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Pleasedon't me make do ULA + NAT66)

Why 13?  How about 3 or more?  Real life doesn't always fit neatly into a policy. 

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:46 PM
To: mcr at sandelman.ca; Gary T. Giesen
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Pleasedon't me make do ULA + NAT66)

Michael,

Does Gary's concrete suggestion -- adding a qualifier that you can get approved for IPv6 space if you have 13 more sites, with no other criteria -- make sense to you? Would you support it?

Thanks,
David


-----Original Message-----
From: mcr at sandelman.ca [mailto:mcr at sandelman.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 12:42 PM
To: Gary T. Giesen
Cc: David Huberman; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)


Gary T. Giesen <ggiesen at giesen.me> wrote:
    > That's obviously a consideration but I don't want to build an IPv6
    > adoption model for my customers around something quite so fuzzy where
    > one customer could be approved and another be denied. I prefer
    > something a little more concrete that I can point a customer to an say
    > "apply under this" and it's plain to them (and ARIN) that they qualify.

I completely hear you.
I've argued repeatedly (back to 2007) that this BS about routing slots is onsense, and that these kinds of policies are preventing adoption of IPv6 by small and middle sized enterprises.

It's just not ARIN's job to protect routing slots.

I'm not clear if the resulting /40 will be announced at all.
If it will remain internal with IPVPN, and then, with a PI prefix from each
*local* ISP, then you have the classic Non-Connected Network.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [



_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.