-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com Sent: Il-Ġimgħa, 16 ta' Ġunju 2006 12:14 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Oh I could do that. But then... What the hell are policies for anyway! That's the scope of this thread really.
Policies are there to guide RIPE members and RIPE NCC employees. If you read RIPE-267 it says:
d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years.
It doesn't say that you follow the plan exactly or the addresses will be taken away. It does not say that you forever give up your rights to change your plans. It does not say that the plan must be accomplished without setting up new business units. It does not require you to spend a specific amount of money implementing your plan. It does not tell you that you must have assigned 100 of those /48s by the end of the next year.
This policy seems to have triggered something in our human psychology because many people in many countries have reacted to this wording like you have. For some reason, almost everyone who reads this policy believes that it contains requirements which are not written there.
For that reason alone, it should be changed. Criteria a), b), and c) really are good enough reason to give an IPv6 /32 to an LIR.
But, we are talking about 2006-2 which also changes the text of b) and c):
a) be an LIR b) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organisations or to its own/related departments/entities/sites to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through a single aggregated address allocation
and
c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 assignments within two years
It seems like a reasonable change to me.
Excellent... That's the bottom line. So let's change it. What's the use of putting a plan together (I have one ready) whilst knowing full well at the back of one's mind that A) I will be changing these plans B) I have no way to know how I will accomplish this plan C) I have no clue of the amount of money if any I can get approved to allocate towards plan and D) Many of my 'potential' /48 clients are completely as yet unconvinced on the need for v6 That is why I support the text as revised. I could even dare suggest an extra line wherein beneficiaries of /32 should return allocations if unutilised within a term of X years. But that's a different story :)
--Michael Dillon