FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Hi, This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list. There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers.
You can find the full proposal at:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014.
Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce@ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014, at 17:00, Erik Bais wrote:
There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014.
Hello, In order to get to the end of the logic (and also be a bit more in-line with the rationale of 2014-04), Shouldn't we also review the paragraph 7.1 ("IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs") ? Or should this be done in a separate proposal ?
Hi Radu, Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case in order to keep this discussion clean. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Radu-Adrian Feurdean [mailto:ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net] Verzonden: maandag 10 november 2014 9:44 Aan: Erik Bais; ipv6-wg@ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) On Sat, Nov 8, 2014, at 17:00, Erik Bais wrote:
There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014.
Hello, In order to get to the end of the logic (and also be a bit more in-line with the rationale of 2014-04), Shouldn't we also review the paragraph 7.1 ("IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs") ? Or should this be done in a separate proposal ?
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote:
Could you provide insight in what you want to review ?
That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers.
My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements - which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT"). Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable. Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??). Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier to read and understand. Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases of LIR consolidation. Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably go live before we sort out this issue).
No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case in order to keep this discussion clean.
Done :) -- Radu
participants (3)
-
Erik Bais -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN