some argument to make the infrastructure/DC a site as well.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Gary T. Giesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to