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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: February-17-15 3:48 PM To: David Huberman; [email protected]; Gary T. Giesen Cc: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:46 PM To: [email protected]; Gary T. Giesen Cc: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 12:42 PM To: Gary T. Giesen Cc: David Huberman; [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66) Gary T. Giesen <[email protected]> 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 [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
