2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. The proposal has two purposes: to create a new policy document and to change a current one. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> before 29 September 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:34:22PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. [...] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html
In section 4.0: * The value of the "assignment-size:" attribute must be less than the size of the object's bit mask. should read: * The value of the "assignment-size:" attribute must be more than the length of the object-s bit mask. It could also be precised as "strictly more" for the equal case is trivial/useless. -- Bertrand Yvain http://www.IELO.net/
On 2 sep 2010, at 15:20, Bertrand Yvain wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:34:22PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. [...] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html
In section 4.0:
* The value of the "assignment-size:" attribute must be less than the size of the object's bit mask.
should read:
* The value of the "assignment-size:" attribute must be more than the length of the object-s bit mask.
It could also be precised as "strictly more" for the equal case is trivial/useless.
Nice one indeed will pick this up on the second revision... Groet, MarcoH
On 1 Sep 2010, at 14:34, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html
Hello everyone Do we need this new status attribute ? If I have a /32, and I assign a /48 to be a dsl-pool, with which to make end-user assignments of /56, then that /48 is already assigned isn't it ? Giving a customer a /56 then makes one slice used, but it's not a sub-assignment is it ? In the way that if I mark a /24 from a /21 of v4 as a dsl-pool, then I am not implying here that there are 256 sub-assignments ? Sorry if I have missed something.. Andy
On 3 sep 2010, at 11:12, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 1 Sep 2010, at 14:34, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html
Hello everyone
Do we need this new status attribute ? If I have a /32, and I assign a /48 to be a dsl-pool, with which to make end-user assignments of /56, then that /48 is already assigned isn't it ? Giving a customer a /56 then makes one slice used, but it's not a sub-assignment is it ? In the way that if I mark a /24 from a /21 of v4 as a dsl-pool, then I am not implying here that there are 256 sub-assignments ?
Sorry if I have missed something..
The deal on the status attribute is you want to know what each customer gets invidually, so in the end you can say: I have 170 customers in this pool, which makes it for 170/256 part full So instead of keeping a list of all assignments and providing the NCC access to it, you can simply copy the system which you now have for v4. Where you are required to produce the number of connections. Groet, MarcoH
participants (4)
-
Andy Davidson -
Bertrand Yvain -
Emilio Madaio -
Marco Hogewoning