Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> 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.
I would wr
David Huberman wrote:
> 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?
As a step in the right direction, yes, I would definitely support i
It seems to me, and I am sure I don't know or have all the answers,
that there is a disconnect going on in this discussion.
On one hand there is the great cry of v4 is running out and everybody
should/must move to v6 because addresses are plentiful and this is the
future. On the other we are gett
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: arin-ppml-boun...@ar
Just to be clear, I'd love to have any customer that qualifies for a /44 or
more be eligible, but I thought that was a pretty low bar and would face
significant resistance from the community.
GTG
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
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 anyw
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 Me
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: m...@sandelman.ca [mailto:m...@sandelman.ca]
Se
Gary T. Giesen 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
Replace the contents of 6.5.8.1 with:
6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices directly
attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for the addresses
to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting o
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> I don't necessarily disagree. Just trying to minimize the business risk of
> having to have virtually all of my customers qualify under e) with the risk
> of rejection because my use case isn't specifically spelled out.
Hi Gary,
When your
We're not talking 50 new routes. We're talking about an aggregate /40.
GTG
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: February-17-15 1:06 PM
To: Gary T. Giesen
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP
Gary,
That resonates with me. I agree with you that obtaining IPv6 from the RIR
needs to be a sure thing, not a risk, for any network operator who needs PI v6
to sanely build their network.
Do you have a general or any specific recommendation for capturing this in
policy better than the curre
David,
I don’t necessarily disagree. Just trying to minimize the business risk of
having to have virtually all of my customers qualify under e) with the risk of
rejection because my use case isn’t specifically spelled out. And I realize
perhaps my use case is a very small minority. But the b
Thank you John!
So Gary: I understand your meta point. I am all for clarity and ease-of-use in
the NRPM. As an AC member, I hope to drive the NRPM to more and more
“easiness”.
But (and perhaps I’m wrong), I feel that EU v6 policy is pretty needs-free and
easy. You have 5 clauses to qualify u
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 h
On Feb 17, 2015, at 11:54 AM, David Huberman
mailto:david.huber...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
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.
Question for ARIN: In the general (normal) case
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.
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 f
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
Apply under e). You'll get approved, I think.
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net on behalf of Gary
T. Giesen
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 7:36:59 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-p
Bill,
One of the tests for a direct assignment is if renumbering would affect 2000+
users. My argument is that having to renumber a /40 worth of address space
because they switch providers is at *least* as painful has having to renumber
2000 users.
GTG
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo.
The point isn't the size of the block, it's the cost of the route.
-Bill
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 08:23, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
> Your point is valid and I agree that IPv6 doesn’t need those needs tests
> except maybe for large blocks. The routing table is always an issue
Bill,
I understand the implications to the routing table (and why the policy is in
place). My argument is that if a customer is large enough to justify a /40,
I think they should be able to warrant getting a direct assignment. Note
that my specific use case is for IPVPN (ie private networks) which
Your point is valid and I agree that IPv6 doesn’t need those needs tests except
maybe for large blocks. The routing table is always an issue, but if we want
IPv6 to become the standard we should follow Jon Postel’s model of making it
easy to get IPv6 resources. Since there is a yearly fee to g
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> The IPv4 policy has no multihoming requirement, and a vastly lower minimum
> host count. While the IPv6 policy does try to address some of the economic
> pain of renumbering, I don't think it goes far enough.
Hi Gary,
This is because we'r
PPML,
I'd like to discuss what I perceive as a gap in the IPv6 End User policy.
Under the NRPM Section 4.3, there are virtually no requirements for an
initial IPv4 assignment to end users, other than the minimum allocation size
is a /24 and a 50% (128 addresses) within one year. Under the
26 matches
Mail list logo
