Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Laura, On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote:
During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to propose any policy changes.
During the meeting, I asked you not to waste your time on this. Since the policy is already changing in the other regions, our time would be better spend to move forwards, instead of stalling the policy development process by spending time on 'clarifications'. I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are appropriate. Thanks, David Kessens ---
David, Fully agree and support your suggestion. Let's move on. Regards, Jordi ---- Original Message ---- From: "David Kessens" <david@iprg.nokia.com> To: "Laura Cobley" <laura@ripe.net> Cc: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Laura,
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote:
During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to propose any policy changes.
During the meeting, I asked you not to waste your time on this. Since the policy is already changing in the other regions, our time would be better spend to move forwards, instead of stalling the policy development process by spending time on 'clarifications'.
I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are appropriate.
Thanks,
David Kessens ---
********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-22, at 01.46, David Kessens wrote:
I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are appropriate.
Agreed. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNfhjqarNKXTPFCVEQK4zQCfX4tquEy91XXIOc7afQHf3Zs9X7IAoJBf caUU3cjnVUNnbEXhg7yCh/Lo =/ilX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David & all, On 21 Jun, David Kessens wrote: | | Laura, | | On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote: | > | > During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate | > work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to | > propose any policy changes. | | During the meeting, I asked you not to waste your time on this. Since | the policy is already changing in the other regions, our time would be | better spend to move forwards, instead of stalling the policy | development process by spending time on 'clarifications'. | | I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC | to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other | regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are | appropriate. ==> If it is deemed that it would be worth proceeding now to the Policy change (instead of simply clarifing it as it was initially intended), let me please draw your attention to the following web page at APNIC site, which compares RIR implementations of the global IPv6 Policy and which may be useful as a start: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/rir-comparison.html By the way, you can have a look at section 3.4.1 ("Critical Infrastructure") which describes, AFAIK, somtehing which is implemented only in APNIC region and which would be useful for ccTLDs in Europe (for instance, .de and .fr to name a few of them). Regards, Mohsen.
Hi Mohsen, http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/rir-comparison.html Looking at the LACNIC site, I believe this is not updated. I think same for ARIN. Regarding the critical infrastructure, I fully support a policy change on this in RIPE. Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mohsen Souissi" <Mohsen.Souissi@nic.fr> To: "David Kessens" <david@iprg.nokia.com> Cc: "Laura Cobley" <laura@ripe.net>; <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
David & all,
On 21 Jun, David Kessens wrote: | | Laura, | | On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote: | > | > During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate | > work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to | > propose any policy changes. | | During the meeting, I asked you not to waste your time on this. Since | the policy is already changing in the other regions, our time would be | better spend to move forwards, instead of stalling the policy | development process by spending time on 'clarifications'. | | I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC | to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other | regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are | appropriate.
==> If it is deemed that it would be worth proceeding now to the Policy change (instead of simply clarifing it as it was initially intended), let me please draw your attention to the following web page at APNIC site, which compares RIR implementations of the global IPv6 Policy and which may be useful as a start:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/rir-comparison.html
By the way, you can have a look at section 3.4.1 ("Critical Infrastructure") which describes, AFAIK, somtehing which is implemented only in APNIC region and which would be useful for ccTLDs in Europe (for instance, .de and .fr to name a few of them).
Regards,
Mohsen.
********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com 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 Jordi You are right. The policy comparison document is updated every six months in collaborative work among the 4 RIR we are just about to released the newest version soon. LACNIC is right now applying a different IPv6 initial allocation policy. The rest of the document remains the same as the original common IPv6 policy. This issue was discussed during LACNIC V in last november and implemented in february this year. LACNIC community had consensus about get rid of 200 /48 assignments, demand the announcement of the entire IPv6 block before the 12 months and asked for IPv6 based services before the 24 months. It is important to mention also that LACNIC do not allocate IPv6 address to closed networks at this moment. This topic has been also a point of discussion among the differentescommunities. I add the text for the initial IPv6 allocation policy at LACNIC To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: a) Be a LIR or an ISP; b) Not be an end site (end user); c) Document a detailed plan for the services and IPv6 connectivity to be offered to other organizations (clients) d) Announce a single block in the Internet inter-domain routing system, aggregating the total IPv6 address allocation received, within a period not longer than 12 months. e) Offer IPv6 services to clients physically located within the region covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than 24 months. Regards German Valdez LACNIC At 06:04 AM 6/22/2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Mohsen,
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/rir-comparison.html Looking at the LACNIC site, I believe this is not updated. I think same for ARIN.
Regarding the critical infrastructure, I fully support a policy change on this in RIPE.
Regards, Jordi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mohsen Souissi" <Mohsen.Souissi@nic.fr> To: "David Kessens" <david@iprg.nokia.com> Cc: "Laura Cobley" <laura@ripe.net>; <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
David & all,
On 21 Jun, David Kessens wrote: | | Laura, | | On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote: | > | > During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate | > work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to | > propose any policy changes. | | During the meeting, I asked you not to waste your time on this. Since | the policy is already changing in the other regions, our time would be | better spend to move forwards, instead of stalling the policy | development process by spending time on 'clarifications'. | | I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC | to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other | regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are | appropriate.
==> If it is deemed that it would be worth proceeding now to the Policy change (instead of simply clarifing it as it was initially intended), let me please draw your attention to the following web page at APNIC site, which compares RIR implementations of the global IPv6 Policy and which may be useful as a start:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/rir-comparison.html
By the way, you can have a look at section 3.4.1 ("Critical Infrastructure") which describes, AFAIK, somtehing which is implemented only in APNIC region and which would be useful for ccTLDs in Europe (for instance, .de and .fr to name a few of them).
Regards,
Mohsen.
********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com
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.
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 6/15/2004
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 6/15/2004
Hi, On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:45:25AM +0200, Mohsen Souissi wrote:
By the way, you can have a look at section 3.4.1 ("Critical Infrastructure") which describes, AFAIK, somtehing which is implemented only in APNIC region and which would be useful for ccTLDs
Please let's not reopen the generic "critical infrastructure" discussion now. It has come up a couple of times, and every time there was consensus that we don't want that in the RIPE region. If you have a *more specific* proposal, you're welcome, of course.
in Europe (for instance, .de and .fr to name a few of them).
DENIC seems to be fairly happy with the IPv6 /48 they currently use. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
--On måndag 21 juni 2004 16.46 -0700 David Kessens <david@iprg.nokia.com> wrote:
I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are appropriate.
Agree. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
participants (7)
-
David Kessens -
German Valdez -
Gert Doering -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Mohsen Souissi -
Måns Nilsson