<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My concern is that the thresholds for a direct assignment are already specified in 6.5.8.1 a through d, which my example customer would not qualify under any of them. What I’m asking for is essentially a fifth criteria (other than reasonable technical justification) - “By having a network that has at least 13 sites” as I’m know sure you qualify “not wanting to renumber” as a reasonable technical justification. Clearly c) and d) are in place to reduce the pain of renumbering for larger customers, I’m just arguing my example customer’s pain at renumbering is at least as great as anyone who qualifies under either c) or d) and deserves a direct assignment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John, Are you able to speak to the specific scenario I’ve previously laid out (and whether ARIN would approve such a request under 6.5.8.1e)?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>GTG<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Curran<br><b>Sent:</b> February-17-15 12:09 PM<br><b>To:</b> David R Huberman<br><b>Cc:</b> Gary T. Giesen; arin-ppml@arin.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On Feb 17, 2015, at 11:54 AM, David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But “something quite so fuzzy” is your interpretation, not ARIN’s. So let’s get ARIN’s interpretation and try and take the fuzziness out of the equation.</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Question for ARIN: In the general (normal) case when an application is made for EU v6 under clause e) and there’s a technical explanation for why they want RIR-issued space, will the application be approved ?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Yes, so long as a technical explanation is provided. NRPM 6.5.8.1 provides a <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>list of several situations that would warrant direct end-user IPv6 assignment,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>and others are accepted as well so long as a reasonable technical justification<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>is provided.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>/John<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>John Curran<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>President and CEO<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>ARIN<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>