Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57. We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
Hello, I support this proposal. Ana Matic wrote:
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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57.
We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
Regards,
Ana Matic RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Howdy, --On Thuesday, 25. November 2008 11:56 +0100 Ana Matic <anamatic@ripe.net> wrote:
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
I support it. Cheers, Christian
I support it as well... ______________________________________ Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards Lars Lystrup Christensen Director of Engineering, CCIE(tm) #20292 Danske Telecom A/S - Clearwire Denmark Sundkrogsgade 13, 4 2100 København Ø -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian Meutes Sent: 25. november 2008 17:46 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Howdy, --On Thuesday, 25. November 2008 11:56 +0100 Ana Matic <anamatic@ripe.net> wrote:
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
I support it. Cheers, Christian
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:56:22AM +0100, Ana Matic wrote:
PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations
Without further ado, I support this proposal.
Ana Matic wrote:
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
This proposal has improved substantially since v3.0, and it is long overdue. While I support it as-is, I have two comments. - the "temporary" status of the proposal has been changed to permanent. This is a good move, and merely recognition that reclaiming address space is an enormously difficult challenge, even if assigned on a temporary basis. - while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to define that term). Private interconnection to third parties is also a fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent number resources. Nick
Nick Hilliard wrote:
- while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to define that term). Private interconnection to third parties is also a fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent number resources.
Concurred. E.g., IPv6 might not be available from the second provider of a customer yet ... Another "pro": Having customers with operational (and multi-homed-able) IPv6 might increase pressure on those other ISPs that still haven't put IPv6 into productive operation ... -garry
Nick Hilliard wrote:
- while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to define that term). Private interconnection to third parties is also a fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent number resources.
I also saw a lot of cases when PI announced via upstream's ASN, not via user's one. I think, it is OK and it is not against multihoming, as this ASN is multihomed of course. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On 25 Nov 2008, at 18:20, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Ana Matic wrote:
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
I support this proposal.
- while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet
I agree with Nick. Andy
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2008-11-25, o godz. 11:56, przez Ana Matic:
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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57.
We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at:
As I'm not RIPE member but IPv6 user, I support it and waiting for implementation. Regards, -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office@e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net
Hi, Ana Matic schrieb:
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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57.
We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
the proposal still has my full support. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Sascha Lenz a écrit :
Hi,
Ana Matic schrieb:
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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57. We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
the proposal still has my full support.
Yes we full support too. bst regards. Frederic CELLA
I don't like this.
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments:
To qualify for an IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: a) not be an IPv6 LIR; b) demonstrate that it will be multihomed (for example by showing contracts of the peering partners)
"For example" should not be in a policy sentence like this. This sentence style encourages the writer to be too brief. If it is really necessary to include examples of what constitutes a "demonstration" of multihoming, then it should be enumerated like this: 1) faxing the first page and signature page of contracts of peering partners 2) asking peering partners to send supporting email direct to RIPE 3) faxing orders for peering interconnect circuits 4) providing a letter from a signing officer of the organization stating that it will be multihoming in the near future
c) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region"
The prefix will be assigned by the RIPE NCC directly to the End User Organisations upon a request properly submitted to the RIPE NCC, either
The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. Organisations requesting a larger assignment (shorter prefix) must provide documentation justifying
This is awful. The policies described in the referenced document basically boil down to requiring the end user to have a contractual relationship with an LIR or with RIPE. Could we not say simply: c) provide a faxed copy of the first page and signature page of the signed end user contract with an LIR or RIPE. directly or through a sponsoring LIR. the need for additional subnets.
Additional assignments may also be made when there is a technical need demanding this or usage justified. When possible, these further assignments will be made from an adjacent address block.
Assignments will be allocated from a separate 'designated block' to facilitate filtering practices.
The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations.
--Michael Dillon
PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations ... We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
Under the assumption that | c) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled | "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in | the RIPE NCC Service Region" won't be just a paper tiger I fully support this proposal. Bernhard
Hi,
To qualify for an IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: a) not be an IPv6 LIR;
Does this mean that the IPv6 PI assignment must be reclaimed by the RIPE NCC if a company that runs an LIR and has an IPv6 allocation buys a company that uses an IPv6 PI assignment? [...]
c) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled ³Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region²
Is this document available for review yet? It seems to form an integral part of the proposed policy. [...]
The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. Organisations requesting a larger assignment (shorter prefix) must provide documentation justifying the need for additional subnets.
Additional assignments may also be made when there is a technical need demanding this or usage justified. When possible, these further assignments will be made from an adjacent address block.
The phrase "a technical need demanding this or usage justified" is a bit vague. It would be nice to have some kind of guide so that applicants and the RIPE NCC have an idea of what the bar is (meant to be).
Assignments will be allocated from a separate 'designated block' to facilitate
I'd suggest changing the word "allocated" to "taken". Regards, Leo Vegoda
Hello, Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 8:08:31 AM, you wrote:
c) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled ³Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region² LV> Is this document available for review yet? It seems to form an integral part LV> of the proposed policy.
This is a part of accepted policy. http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html -- Kind regards, sergey myasoedov
Hi Sergey, On 26/11/2008 8:13, "sergey miassoedov" <sergey@devnull.ru> wrote: [...]
c) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled ³Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region² LV> Is this document available for review yet? It seems to form an integral part LV> of the proposed policy.
This is a part of accepted policy. http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html
Thanks for the reference. Much appreciated! It would be fab if the RIPE NCC could provide appropriate linkage from the proposal page to the Contractual Requirements document, so that anyone reviewing the proposal can easily read the associated document. Thanks, Leo
Dear Leo, we have now added the link from the proposal page to the document "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region". You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi Sergey,
On 26/11/2008 8:13, "sergey miassoedov" <sergey@devnull.ru> wrote:
[...]
c) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled ³Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region²
LV> Is this document available for review yet? It seems to form an integral part LV> of the proposed policy.
This is a part of accepted policy. http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html
Thanks for the reference. Much appreciated!
It would be fab if the RIPE NCC could provide appropriate linkage from the proposal page to the Contractual Requirements document, so that anyone reviewing the proposal can easily read the associated document.
Thanks,
Leo
On 25.11.2008 11:56, Ana Matic wrote:
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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57.
We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
We as a LIR (pop-interactive/DE) support this proposal. -- Gerald Krause
I support this proposal. 2008/11/25 Ana Matic <anamatic@ripe.net>:
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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57.
We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
Regards,
Ana Matic RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
-- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Greetings! I support this proposal. Best regards, Tomas Hlavacek Ana Matic wrote:
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 received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57.
We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2008.
Regards,
Ana Matic RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
participants (18)
-
Ana Matic -
Andy Davidson -
Bernhard Schmidt -
Christian Meutes -
Frederic -
Garry Glendown -
gerald＠ax.tc -
Lars Lystrup Christensen -
Leo Vegoda -
lists-ripe＠c4inet.net -
Marcin Gondek -
Max Tulyev -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nick Hilliard -
Ondřej Surý -
Sascha Lenz -
sergey miassoedov -
Tomas Hlavacek