Вторник, 11 июня 2013, 12:00 +02:00 от address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net:

Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members (Peter Koch) 2. Policy Proposal 2012-10 "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis" implemented (Kjell Leknes)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:20:30 +0200 From: Peter Koch < pk@DENIC.DE > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members To: ncc-services-wg@ripe.net, address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: < 20130610152030.GK14598@x28.adm.denic.de > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 03:32:31PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:

...

Whether we need a formal "policy" or just an agreement (amongst the members of the NCC) to a Service Description and a review of the CPS as maintained by the NCC is a sideline issue, imho.

For now using the framework of the PDP maybe useful and appropriate.

I respectfully suggest it is not. The current modus operandi for RPKI in the NCC service region is not only not based on a policy created by the PDP, it exists despite a policy proposal for that very subject having failed. Whether or not that creates a schism might be interesting to discuss, but is not relevant for the case at hand. What counts here is that the absence of policy is not an 'omission' or accident.

So far I have seen support for 2013-04 based on symmetry or equality of PA, PI and other (former) special cases. While this might have merit operationally, it cannot support a parallel policy just because there's nothing to draw the parallel to. This point of order has not been addressed so far (and there are multiple solutions to this situation).

Therefore I formally object to 2013-04 being elevated into the next PDP phase.

-Peter

------------------------------

Message: 2 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:43:29 +0200 From: Kjell Leknes < kjell@ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal 2012-10 "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis" implemented To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" < address-policy-wg@ripe.net >, "policy-announce@ripe.net" < policy-announce@ripe.net > Message-ID: < 11E136AE-2A9A-4798-9F2E-D57CF49672D8@ripe.net > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

[Apologies for duplicate emails]

Dear colleagues,

We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-10, "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis", has been implemented.

The full policy proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 [Open URL]

The updated RIPE Document 589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 [Open URL]

You can request this extension by submitting the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form through the LIR Portal, or by emailing it to hostmaster@ripe.net

If you have any questions, please contact ncc@ripe.net

Regards,

Kjell Leknes Registration Services RIPE NCC