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

Wed Feb 18 09:22:16 EST 2015

Don't need to. The NRPM defines a site in 2.10 (
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two10)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Winters [mailto:mwinters at edwardrose.com] 
Sent: February-18-15 8:47 AM
To: Gary T. Giesen; 'David Huberman'; mcr at sandelman.ca
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please
don't me make do ULA + NAT66)

Curious, how do you define a site?

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Gary T. Giesen
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:49 PM
To: 'David Huberman'; mcr at sandelman.ca
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please
don't me make do ULA + NAT66)

FYI to try to address Bill Herrin's concern, I amended that they be 13 sites
in a contiguous network to try to reduce the probability that there be 13
separate announcements, although I'm not sure how enforceable such a
provision would be.

GTG

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of David Huberman
Sent: February-17-15 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: Please
don'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.