Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
Arano-san, First I'd like to respond to your last sentence, your English is just fine... thanks for the thoughtful note. I have one comment (see below) At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: >Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" >and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who >should have a /48 from their upstream...? Yes, this is the point. I basically supports RIPE's consensus. First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far. Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" is almost OK, but one problem may be to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as I heard. This may include an large enterprise. One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested. In the ARIN region, it is true, anyone can become a member of ARIN by paying a fee. to get address space, however, you have to give quite a lot of justification. Every ARIN member does not have address space. I just want to make sure that's clear. I am a member of ARIN as an individual. I paid $500 for the year 2002. I have no address space and I am not what you'd call an LIR. ---CJ
Cathy, At 12:16 02/02/08, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
First I'd like to respond to your last sentence, your English is just fine... thanks for the thoughtful note. I have one comment (see below)
Thanks. Are you supporting my idea except this one?
At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: >Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" >and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who >should have a /48 from their upstream...?
Yes, this is the point.
I basically supports RIPE's consensus. First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far.
Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" is almost OK, but one problem may be to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as I heard. This may include an large enterprise. One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested.
In the ARIN region, it is true, anyone can become a member of ARIN by paying a fee. to get address space, however, you have to give quite a lot of justification. Every ARIN member does not have address space. I just want to make sure that's clear. I am a member of ARIN as an individual. I paid $500 for the year 2002. I have no address space and I am not what you'd call an LIR.
Thank you for your clarification. Maybe your comment supports an idea of avoiding use of the term "LIR". Regards, Takashi Arano
Arano-san From: Takashi Arano <arano@gblx.ad.jp> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Cathy, At 12:16 02/02/08, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: >First I'd like to respond to your last sentence, your English is >just fine... thanks for the thoughtful note. I have one comment >(see below) Thanks. Are you supporting my idea except this one? Sorry for the delay in responding. I feel that it is essential that we have a global policy. I feel that it is also very important that we have a policy, some sort of criteria that is used to determine who gets blocks from RIRs and who gets them from their ISP. I know that there are always ways of circumventing the policy, but we still need to have one. I understand Wilfried's comments on making sure we don't inhibit deployment of IPv6. I also feel that we should try out best not to make the mistakes of the past (creating the haves and have nots, and other things discussed already). I believe that your proposal with the recently suggested change is a good start along the way of having a global policy. I am not sure if this will be approved in all regions. I'd like to see it put into a draft so that the upcoming APNIC and ARIN policy groups can discuss it. Thanks! ---CJ > At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: > >Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" > >and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who > >should have a /48 from their upstream...? > > Yes, this is the point. > > I basically supports RIPE's consensus. > First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 > is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. > Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far. > > Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" > is almost OK, but one problem may be > to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. > In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as > I heard. This may include an large enterprise. > One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even > if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested. > >In the ARIN region, it is true, anyone can become a member of ARIN >by paying a fee. to get address space, however, you have to give >quite a lot of justification. Every ARIN member does not have address >space. I just want to make sure that's clear. I am a member of ARIN >as an individual. I paid $500 for the year 2002. I have no address space >and I am not what you'd call an LIR. Thank you for your clarification. Maybe your comment supports an idea of avoiding use of the term "LIR". Regards, Takashi Arano
participants (3)
-
CJ Wittbrodt -
cjw＠groovy.com
-
Takashi Arano