Dear Andries, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 9:12:06 AM, you wrote:

...

To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: a) not be an LIR IOK> What is the rationale behind this? That LIRs do not need IPv6 PI address IOK> space? IOK> For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 PI IOK> address space. Is this what is meant here?

The LIR can receive /32 PA allocation at once. In this case, I don't see the reasons why LIRs can request PI blocks, which are usually smaller. -- Sergey

On 10 Feb 2009, at 09:20, Eliot Lear wrote:

Isn't space allocated to an LIR PA by definition?

Hi, No; today they might have PA and PI. An organisation may need to run two discrete networks, for some load balancing, resilience, and continuity applications. They may have PA for their usual services, and for making assignments to end users, and PI for their own infrastructure or services which must be announced independently. Examples might be organisations who make assignments to end users, and run anycast dns services. I think it's a mistake to say that an organisation can not have v6 PI, simply because they are an LIR. Their relationship with RIPE does not alter the technical correctness (or otherwise) of their request for address resources. Kind regards, Andy Davidson LONAP Ltd and NetSumo Ltd www.lonap.net www.netsumo.com

On 10 Feb 2009, at 12:47, Gert Doering wrote:

But I can see your point - there might be cases where, for whatever reason, a LIR might want to assign a separate network to itself, and indeed this is not currently covered by 2006-01. [...] - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it).

There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. Thanks Andy

On 10/02/2009 12:56, Andy Davidson wrote:

There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe.

If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix.

policy parity with ipv4 assignment should be considered here. There is no prohibition in RIPE441 that I can find which prevents LIRs from getting PI assignments. Maybe someone else can advise me otherwise. However, this policy has been on the table for just a couple of months less than 3 years. Let's go ahead with it, as proposed, and the limitation on LIRs can be removed afterwards. Nick

Hello, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 1:56:06 PM, you wrote: AD> If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the AD> NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. I support this suggestion. IPv6 PI should be implemented ASAP. -- Sergey

Hello Gert, What would be the minimum delay if there is an extra discussion/review phase? If I am correct RIPE will give an extra IPv6 PA assignment on request, could this also be an option? With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service www.streamservice.nl Hosting: nl.php.net grisham.freenode.net and many others -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 13:47 To: Andy Davidson Cc: Eliot Lear; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Hi, On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:29:50PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:

Examples might be organisations who make assignments to end users, and run anycast dns services.

Bad example, as this is what we have the anycast DNS assignment policy for (which is currently being worked on to cover cases missing in the first version). But I can see your point - there might be cases where, for whatever reason, a LIR might want to assign a separate network to itself, and indeed this is not currently covered by 2006-01. What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind about is: - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round of discussion/review phase". (I'm a bit sorry to see this come up now, in the review phase, after we had very strong support to go ahead with *what we have* in the previous discussion phase) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote:

What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind about is:

- do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it).

- do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round of discussion/review phase".

Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any changes to it in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. Groet, MarcoH

I also agree with MarcoH Regards, Ralph Smit. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Hogewoning Sent: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 14:19 To: Gert Doering Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote:

What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind about is:

- do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it).

- do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round of discussion/review phase".

Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any changes to it in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. Groet, MarcoH

I think it's a mistake to say that an organisation can not have v6 PI, simply because they are an LIR. Their relationship with RIPE does not alter the technical correctness (or otherwise) of their request for address resources.

I personally agree with this. However we as an organization would not support delaying this policy any longer. By accepting this policy we fix a major gap in parity with the IPv4 policy, and any fixes can be done later. Even the smallest ISP is not a RIPE LIR, they are an ISP which has a RIPE LIR relationship. So the LIR clause is not only an inappropriate non-technical criteria, it is actually non-functional as well. I would like to see 2006-01 accepted as soon as possible, and a new proposal made to get rid of the LIR clause, and perhaps also address underlying technical issues. For instance, should the clause be changed to say that PI blocks should not be given to networks which have PA blocks announced by the same AS number? In other words, is there an underlying technical criteria related to reducing the number of IPv6 announcements from a single network? --Michael Dillon

Hi Andries, If you're a LIR, you already can obtain an IPv6 prefix by the regular policy, so you don't have a need for having a PI one. Regards, Jordi

From: IP-Office KPN <ip-office@kpn.com> Reply-To: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:12:06 +0100 To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

All,

I might have missed some of the discussion and emails - in that case my sincere apologies -, but I couldn't find the answer in my archive, so here's my question:

...

To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: a) not be an LIR

What is the rationale behind this? That LIRs do not need IPv6 PI address space? For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 PI address space. Is this what is meant here?

With kind regards,

Andries Hettema IP-Office KPN Internet +31 70 45 13398 ip-office@kpn.com

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:35 PM To: policy-announce@ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations

Dear Colleagues,

The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 5.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html

and the draft document at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2006-01-v5.html

We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 March 2009.

Regards

Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

________________________________________________________________________ ______________ This inbound message to KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN MailScan, powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit: http://www.kpn.com, keyword 'Mailscan' ________________________________________________________________________ ______________

********************************************** 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.