RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
People sending comments to this list with the clear intention of supporting the adoption of new policy should take their responsibilities as stewards of the Internet's resources a little more seriously in my opinion. The proposed policy includes the following wording: "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must: ... c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 assignments within two years" Define 'reasonable'. Folks need to stop focussing on getting rid of the 200 /48 assignments rule and start focussing on developing good, useful policy for the region. In the absence of a better alternative (which 2006-02 is emphatically not), then the current policy must suffice. Regards, Mat
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lars Lystrup Christensen Sent: 25 October 2006 08:54 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
I believe the new proposal is much fairer to smaller ISPs, who currently are unable to justify assignments for IPv6. Currently we would not be able to assign 200 /48 in two years and therefore unable to receive IPv6 address space. However, until we are able to provide IPv6 connectivity, our customers won't request such IP addresses from us. And since our customers won't request them, we can't justify requesting from RIPE, who won't assign since we can't assign at lease 200 /48 in two years....
As shown this ends up in a deadlock situation and therefore IPv6 will only be available to larger ISPs.
I know IPv6 is still quite a new "feature" and therefore still not widely used, but unless ISPs get access to IPv6 address space, it won't be more widely used.
I'm definitely in favour of the new proposal.
______________________________________
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
Lars Lystrup Christensen Network Engineer LLC11-RIPE
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Camilleri Sent: 24. oktober 2006 12:14 To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Hi,
I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not *there* are a big improvement on existing text particularly with the dropping of the requirement for 200 /48 assignments.
I fully support the new Proposal
Regards.
Stephen SC4079-RIPE
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Hi all,
Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy proposal.
As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to proceed.
Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments.
The stats don't include my own postings:
- there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it.
- 8 people supported it.
- 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy.
- 5 people made comments which I could not identify a clear support or objection.
So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ?
Regards, Jordi
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Hi, On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:44:07AM +0100, matthew.ford@bt.com wrote:
In the absence of a better alternative (which 2006-02 is emphatically not), then the current policy must suffice.
From the "policy development process" view, this proposal is currently at the end of the "discussion phase". No consensus was reached, so it can not go ahead.
As it was pretty clear that there is a desire to get rid of the 200-customer rule, but that this specific wording isn't going to be *the* answer, Jordi Palet is now working on an updated proposal, which should bring us further forward. The new proposal (actually, two new proposals, one for 2006-01 and one for 2006-02) will be circulated "in a few days". Gert Doering -- RIPE AP WG Chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 98999 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
Hi,
As it was pretty clear that there is a desire to get rid of the 200-customer rule, but that this specific wording isn't going to be *the* answer, Jordi Palet is now working on an updated proposal, which should bring us further forward.
The new proposal (actually, two new proposals, one for 2006-01 and one for 2006-02) will be circulated "in a few days".
Good to hear. I'm looking forward to the new text. Thanks, Sander
People sending comments to this list with the clear intention of supporting the adoption of new policy should take their responsibilities as stewards of the Internet's resources a little more seriously in my opinion.
I think that we all take these responsibilities seriously, however we do not all have such narrow interpretations of "resource stewardship" as you seem to have.
Folks need to stop focussing on getting rid of the 200 /48 assignments rule and start focussing on developing good, useful policy for the region.
The fact is that having the number 200 in the existing policy prevents that policy from being either good or useful. The proposed change puts the policy on the path towards being better and more useful. This is sufficient reason to support the policy. Not all ISPs have the same business model. But if an ISP has an IPv4 network and has received an allocation from RIPE, it is highly likely that their plans for IPv6 deployment will also be reasonable within RIPE's understanding of the term. After all, the organization is already a RIPE LIR. I fully support proposal 2006-2 --Michael Dillon
participants (4)
-
Gert Doering -
matthew.ford＠bt.com -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Sander Steffann