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:[email protected]] Sent: February-18-15 8:47 AM To: Gary T. Giesen; 'David Huberman'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gary T. Giesen Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:49 PM To: 'David Huberman'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: February-17-15 3:46 PM To: [email protected]; Gary T. Giesen Cc: [email protected] 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: [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.
