Hi all, 1) Regarding aggregation benefit The actual way out for organizations that need more than /29 and the justification is not accepted by the NCC is to create multiple LIRs, so they received non-aggregated prefixes. We avoid that with the proposal. 2) Stockpiling is the argument against the proposal. That’s why we had the discussion in the list suggesting to limit it to a single “upgrade to /28” per organization (for example). Also in the slides, I indicated that this may be a problem to be resolved by an additional proposal. Do we want to ask for a justification of those multiples LIRs? (for example) I hope to correctly captured those last inputs, otherwise, please, let us know. In fact, the last comment, I didn’t got it. Not sure if it was just a comment or a question. If the author can clarify will be happy to respond. Tks! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi everyone, hi Jordi, I don’t have an opinion +1/-1 on the proposal right now, but I’d like to comment on your point 2 and what you raised during your talk. I believe that categorizing or, even worse, “discriminating” against certain subnets isn’t the best path forward for a healthy internet, nor will it support our move to IPv6. If the policy is viable and useful, I would just avoid adding further restrictions to its purpose. regards, Riccardo Il 30/10/2024 12:02, jordi.palet--- via address-policy-wg ha scritto:
Hi all,
1) Regarding aggregation benefit
The actual way out for organizations that need more than /29 and the justification is not accepted by the NCC is to create multiple LIRs, so they received non-aggregated prefixes. We avoid that with the proposal.
2) Stockpiling is the argument against the proposal.
That’s why we had the discussion in the list suggesting to limit it to a single “upgrade to /28” per organization (for example).
Also in the slides, I indicated that this may be a problem to be resolved by an additional proposal. Do we want to ask for a justification of those multiples LIRs? (for example)
I hope to correctly captured those last inputs, otherwise, please, let us know.
In fact, the last comment, I didn’t got it. Not sure if it was just a comment or a question. If the author can clarify will be happy to respond.
Tks!
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
jordi.palet--- via address-policy-wg wrote on 30/10/2024 12:02:
Hi all,
1) Regarding aggregation benefit
The actual way out for organizations that need more than /29 and the justification is not accepted by the NCC is to create multiple LIRs, so they received non-aggregated prefixes. We avoid that with the proposal.
Jordi, Can you help people understand why /29 was insufficient for the cases that you referred to, and why the request to the NCC was declined if the /29 was insufficient? A /29 is 2^19 = ~525,000 /48s. There will be organisations who need more than /29, but most won't. From reading the proposal, I don't understand why the best solution to this problem is to increase the default for all organisations. Nick
2) Stockpiling is the argument against the proposal.
That’s why we had the discussion in the list suggesting to limit it to a single “upgrade to /28” per organization (for example).
Also in the slides, I indicated that this may be a problem to be resolved by an additional proposal. Do we want to ask for a justification of those multiples LIRs? (for example)
I hope to correctly captured those last inputs, otherwise, please, let us know.
In fact, the last comment, I didn’t got it. Not sure if it was just a comment or a question. If the author can clarify will be happy to respond.
Tks!
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
participants (3)
-
jordi.palet＠consulintel.es -
Nick Hilliard -
Riccardo Gori