2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Dear Colleagues, The IPv6 WG Chairs have decided that the proposal 2010-06 is ready for a 2 week Review Phase. Marco Hogewoning did not participate to the decision as he is a co-proposer. Following the feedback received, the draft documents for this proposal have been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html and the draft documents at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-481-draft2010-06.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2010-06.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ipv6-wg@ripe.net before 27 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I'm probably just totally confused, but anyway: A) A lot of people (including RFC 3177) claim every residential user should get a /48. A few recent opinions are collected here: http://blog.ioshints.info/2010/12/how-much-ipv6-address-space-should.html B) The ripe-481-draft says "However, all /48 assignments to End Sites are required to be registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs ..." which means that a LIR or an ISP would have to register every residential user. What am I missing? Thanks, Ivan Pepelnjak www.ioshints.info
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:45 PM To: policy-announce@ripe.net Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net; db-wg@ripe.net; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Dear Colleagues,
The IPv6 WG Chairs have decided that the proposal 2010-06 is ready for a 2 week Review Phase. Marco Hogewoning did not participate to the decision as he is a co-proposer.
Following the feedback received, the draft documents for this proposal have been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html
and the draft documents at:
http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-481-draft2010-06.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2010-06.html
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ipv6-wg@ripe.net before 27 December 2010.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hi, On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 05:40:26PM +0100, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
B) The ripe-481-draft says "However, all /48 assignments to End Sites are required to be registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs ..." which means that a LIR or an ISP would have to register every residential user.
Register, yes - so you can provide documentation to the RIPE NCC if you come up for a larger allocation. But not necessarily "register in the RIPE database". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
A) A lot of people (including RFC 3177) claim every residential user should get a /48. A few recent opinions are collected here:
RFC 3177 is old, and will hopefully soon be replaced. The current update to it is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites-00 That document recently completed IETF LC (with no significant opposition) and is being processed by the IESG. Thomas
On 14.12.2010 2:14, Thomas Narten wrote:
A) A lot of people (including RFC 3177) claim every residential user should get a /48. A few recent opinions are collected here:
RFC 3177 is old, and will hopefully soon be replaced. The current update to it is:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites-00
That document recently completed IETF LC (with no significant opposition) and is being processed by the IESG.
...beside Randy's efforts to take the addressing politics out of IETF for good. I must admit I agree with IETF staying engineering entity. IETF has nothing to do with end user address assignments, but on the other hand, RiRs seems to try avoiding that discussion, so we need another place to settle that. IMHO RiR community would be best place to define that, but that's just my .2 cents worth. Best, Jan Zorz go6.si
participants (5)
-
Emilio Madaio -
Gert Doering -
Ivan Pepelnjak -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Thomas Narten