+1 for the proposal
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
address-policy-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address- policy-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial
and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Silvia Hagen)
2. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial
and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
3. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial
and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Carsten Br?ckner)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:59:00 +0000
From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch>
To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net"
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal
(Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7 E70ABF899B@hex02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear WG
I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of subsequent space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It also helps organizations, that have received their space before the updated initial allocation policy can receive space based on the same criteria.
Silvia Hagen
Chair Swiss IPv6 Council
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net ] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20
An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/ proposals/2016-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe. net >> before 23 December 2016.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy- >wg/attachments/20161124/ 9704a2bc/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:23:16 +0100
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal
(Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Message-ID: <559CA103-A7B4-449B-A8F6-B30CA92FBA66@consulintel.es >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi Carsten,
After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess you?re right.
The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.
I think it can be reworded as:
?If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.?
If we want to get the subsequent allocation ?automatically synchronized? with the initial one, we should omit the text in ?()?. I think is the right way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the subsequent allocation.
Saludos,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net > en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Responder a: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39
Para: <bruecknerc@gmail.com>
CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Hi Carsten,
Thanks for your support.
Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ?
Regards,
Jordi
El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Br?ckner <bruecknerc@gmail.com> escribi?:
Hello WG,
I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations.
But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:
"If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.?
Does that mean ?planned longevity? in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request- " paragraph 2 (b)?ipv6/assessment-criteria-for- initial-ipv6-allocation
Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?
Regards,
Carsten
Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements
with the initial allocation requirements.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/ proposals/2016-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:29:33 +0100
From: Carsten Br?ckner <bruecknerc@gmail.com>
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal
(Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Message-ID: <FEF734DE-6977-4732-85A0-B195FDE25AFA@gmail.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Jordi,
Perfect! Full Support :-)
Regards,
Carsten
> Am 24.11.2016 um 22:23 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>:
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess you?re right.
>
> The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.
>
> I think it can be reworded as:
>
> ?If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.?
>
> If we want to get the subsequent allocation ?automatically synchronized? with the initial one, we should omit the text in ?()?. I think is the right way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the subsequent allocation.
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net > en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> Responder a: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39
> Para: <bruecknerc@gmail.com>
> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> Thanks for your support.
>
> Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Br?ckner <bruecknerc@gmail.com> escribi?:
>
>
>
> Hello WG,
>
> I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations.
>
> But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:
> "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.?
>
> Does that mean ?planned longevity? in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request- " paragraph 2 (b)?ipv6/assessment-criteria-for- initial-ipv6-allocation
> Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?
>
> Regards,
> Carsten
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements
> with the initial allocation requirements.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/ proposals/2016-05
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6
************************************************