JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
To make it easier, I'm talking about "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" ... Here is the link to the proposal:
8<------------------------------------ 2. plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organisations or to its own/related departments/entities/sites, to which it will make assignments. The assigned prefixes must be longer than the one allocated by RIPE NCC. The LIR must advertise the allocated address block through a single aggregated prefix. This prefix must be advertised within one year of the allocation being made; ----------------------------->8 "The assigned prefixes must be longer than the one allocated by RIPE NCC." is useless as the LIR can't pass a shorter prefix down as they don't have been assigned that portion. The "must be advertised" part causes any non-internet usage to be 'illegal'. Also the "must advertise.. single..prefix" part is currently already not being honored; also you cannot require this and there is currently no way to stop that. A way to stop it would be requiring S-BGP but that will not be done for the coming years. Also most likely S-BGP will still allow the owner of the certificate to announce more specifics. The whole more-specifics business depends on one factor: Money If you pay people enough or it is important enough one can announce it anyway and no RIR is going to stop that. Including that portion is just a lousy way of trying to inhibit routing table growth which will not work; as can be seen by the multitude of longer prefixes being announced into the global IPv6 routing tables already. (*) Lastly "# have a plan for making assignments within two years.", everybody has a PLAN to do something, actually doing it something else. As the number of assignments is removed, there is no way to check up on this, next to there not being any requirement of actually registering these assignments in the RIPE db, thus there is no way to check. Greets, Jeroen * = see http://ris.ripe.net and http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ ;)