2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Hello WG, I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations. But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3: "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“ Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter... <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation>" paragraph 2 (b)? Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size? Regards, Carsten
Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Hi Carsten, Thanks for your support. Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ? Regards, Jordi
El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner <bruecknerc@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello WG,
I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations.
But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3: "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“
Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter..." paragraph 2 (b)? Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?
Regards, Carsten
Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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 Carsten, After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess you’re right. The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities. I think it can be reworded as: “If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.” If we want to get the subsequent allocation “automatically synchronized” with the initial one, we should omit the text in “()”. I think is the right way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the subsequent allocation. Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39 Para: <bruecknerc@gmail.com> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi Carsten, Thanks for your support. Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ? Regards, Jordi El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner <bruecknerc@gmail.com> escribió: Hello WG, I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations. But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3: "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“ Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter..." paragraph 2 (b)? Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size? Regards, Carsten Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>: Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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, Perfect! Full Support :-) Regards, Carsten
Am 24.11.2016 um 22:23 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>:
Hi Carsten,
After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess you’re right.
The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.
I think it can be reworded as:
“If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.”
If we want to get the subsequent allocation “automatically synchronized” with the initial one, we should omit the text in “()”. I think is the right way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the subsequent allocation.
Saludos, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39 Para: <bruecknerc@gmail.com> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Hi Carsten,
Thanks for your support.
Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ?
Regards, Jordi
El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner <bruecknerc@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello WG,
I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations.
But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3: "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“
Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter..." paragraph 2 (b)? Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?
Regards, Carsten
Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
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.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
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.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
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.
I support this proposal - and also the "automatic synchronisation" wording below. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: 24 November 2016 21:23 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi Carsten, After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess you’re right. The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities. I think it can be reworded as: “If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.” If we want to get the subsequent allocation “automatically synchronized” with the initial one, we should omit the text in “()”. I think is the right way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the subsequent allocation. Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39 Para: <bruecknerc@gmail.com> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi Carsten, Thanks for your support. Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ? Regards, Jordi El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner <bruecknerc@gmail.com> escribió: Hello WG, I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations. But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3: "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“ Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter..." paragraph 2 (b)? Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size? Regards, Carsten Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>: Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
I support the proposal, based on the same reasons outlined by Silvia, and also the link for the "automatic synchronisation" Best regards Martin -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 1:14 PM To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) I support this proposal - and also the "automatic synchronisation" wording below. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: 24 November 2016 21:23 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi Carsten, After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess you’re right. The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities. I think it can be reworded as: “If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.” If we want to get the subsequent allocation “automatically synchronized” with the initial one, we should omit the text in “()”. I think is the right way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the subsequent allocation. Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39 Para: <bruecknerc@gmail.com> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi Carsten, Thanks for your support. Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ? Regards, Jordi El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner <bruecknerc@gmail.com> escribió: Hello WG, I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations. But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3: "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“ Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter..." paragraph 2 (b)? Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size? Regards, Carsten Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>: Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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. Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
* Krengel Martin
I support the proposal, based on the same reasons outlined by Silvia, and also the link for the "automatic synchronisation"
+1 Tore
Dear WG I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of subsequent space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It also helps organizations, that have received their space before the updated initial allocation policy can receive space based on the same criteria. Silvia Hagen Chair Swiss IPv6 Council -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Hi John, I think you’re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that “any” subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the “actual” initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this “total” evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup … but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de <John.Collins@BIT.admin.ch> Responder a: <John.Collins@BIT.admin.ch> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company 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.
participants (9)
-
Carsten Brückner -
Dickinson, Ian -
John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch -
Jordi Palet Martinez -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
-
Krengel Martin -
Marco Schmidt -
Silvia Hagen -
Tore Anderson