With the comments of Nick in mind I support this proposal.
Best,
Remco
----- Original Message -----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net>
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Cc: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Sent: Tue Nov 25 18:20:47 2008
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Ana Matic wrote:
> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments
> to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
This proposal has improved substantially since v3.0, and it is long
overdue. While I support it as-is, I have two comments.
- the "temporary" status of the proposal has been changed to permanent.
This is a good move, and merely recognition that reclaiming address space
is an enormously difficult challenge, even if assigned on a temporary basis.
- while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear
during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for
multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to
define that term). Private interconnection to third parties is also a
fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent
number resources.
Nick
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6,