During the January meeting in Amsterdam we had presentions from Bernard Tuy (Renater), and from Stuart Prevost (BT), and first consensus on this issue. During the April meeting in Bologna, a very comprehensive document, with the problem description and with clear proposals was presented by Nial Murphy, and again converging views were expressed. See Nial Murphy presentation : http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/20010101-20010401/msg00035.ht... http://www.enigma.ie/articles/global-ipv6-alteration.html ETNO expressed supports to Nial's proposals and introduced a common ETNO position on this issue (See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/20010401-20010701/msg00016.ht... http://www.etno.belbone.be/site/positions.htm) Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need a new Draft from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ? Alain Bidron. David Kessens a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:18:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, one thing that was voiced repeatedly was
"if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself is not enough"
For your information:
We are currently planning a joint session for ipv6 allocation policy issues for the next RIPE meeting.
It would be really nice if we can get volunteers from the community who can give a brief presentation on possible solutions. The problem description is pretty clear by now, however, I have not seen any (public) proposals yet on how to solve it. Obviously, there are multiple ways to deal with the issue and it would be nice to discuss advantages and disadvantages of different solutions.
David K. ---