I support this policy. Best regards, Robert Güntensperger |-----Original Message----- |From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- |admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais |Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:43 PM |To: 'DI. Thomas Schallar'; 'RIPE Address Policy Working Group' |Cc: jordi.palet@consulintel.es |Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal |(Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)? | |Hi Thomas, | |A quick update on the status of 2011-02 policy. | |I spoke with the AP-WG-chair last week and the decision is that there |will |be an extended review period to give people the time to ask questions if |needed on the proposal. | |So to everyone on the list, let's hear it. | |I've done a presentation on RIPE62 on the proposal for those not |familiar |with 2011-02 and you can find the PPT here : |http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/171-2011-02_ripe62.ppt | |You can read the policy proposal itself here: |http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 | |In short, the policy proposal is to remove the multi-homing requirement |for |PI IPv6. |Currently, companies can become a LIR and get IPv6, with no multi-home |requirement, same with requesting IPv4 PI. |And companies that don't want to or (legally) can't become a LIR but do |want |to have their own IPv6 addresses are required to be multi-homed. | |The only change in text in the RIPE-512 is: | |Remove the line: | |a) demonstrate that it will be multihomed | |For those that agree with the policy and everything is clear, express |your |support on the AP-WG-mailing list your support. | |Kind regards, |Erik Bais |Co-author of 2011-02