A multihoming requirement discriminates against networks that either cannot or do not want to multihome.<div>I oppose this modification.</div><div>Stacy <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Leo Bicknell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bicknell@ufp.org">bicknell@ufp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">In a message written on Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:14:45AM -0400, Member Services wrote:<br>
> 1) Remove ?by advertising that connectivity through its single<br>
> aggregated address allocation? from article 3 of section 6.5.1.1<br>
><br>
> 2) Remove article 4 of section 6.5.1.1, ?be an existing, known ISP in<br>
> the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200 end-site<br>
> assignments to other organizations within 5 years? in its entirety.<br>
<br>
</div>I fear the way this is written may be confusing. Section 6.5.1.1 is at<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six511" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six511</a><br>
<br>
If these changes were made, I believe the section would then read:<br>
<br>
6.5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria<br>
<br>
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an<br>
organization must:<br>
<br>
1. be an LIR;<br>
2. not be an end site;<br>
3. plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it<br>
will assign IPv6 address space.<br>
<br>
I would like to make two comments as a result.<br>
<br>
Criteria #1 doesn't make a lot of sense. If you were a new participant<br>
(no IPv4 or IPv6 resources at all) and going only for IPv6 then you<br>
aren't an LIR yet, indeed, you are trying to become one. I think,<br>
but cannot be sure, that the LIR reference has to do with fee/membership<br>
structures of other RIR's.<br>
<br>
The result of this policy is basically you get an allocation if you<br>
want one and can show you will provide IPv6 to another entity and<br>
are willing to pay the fees. This is too loose of a standard.<br>
While I believe we should be giving out IPv6 relatively easily and<br>
there is no danger in running out of the numbers that does not mean<br>
we don't still have the issue of routing slots, staff to deal with<br>
the number of requests, and other issues.<br>
<br>
To that end, I would like to suggest a new criteria:<br>
<br>
- Plan to announce the IPv6 address space provided to at least<br>
two other autonomous systems.<br>
<br>
Basically, setting the bar at being multi-homed to BGP speaking<br>
networks. No number of sites requirement, you only need 1 customer<br>
to meet the customer requirement.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Leo Bicknell - <a href="mailto:bicknell@ufp.org">bicknell@ufp.org</a> - CCIE 3440<br>
PGP keys at <a href="http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/" target="_blank">http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/</a><br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>