
Herewith the first draft of the agenda for the forthcoming LIR-WG meeting at RIPE42. It would be good if we could have some on-list discussion on these topics before the meeting itself. Regards, James LIR-WG Co-Chair ---------- LIR WORKING GROUP Draft Agenda for RIPE 42 (version 1.4) 09:00-12:30 Wednesday, 1st May 2002 Chair: Hans Petter Holen Co-chairs: James Aldridge, Denesh Bhabuta Note that some items currently have zero time allocated to them; this may change as we get an idea of how long some of the regular presentations will take. We have a lot to get through so I would urge people not to celebrate Queensday too excessively on Tuesday so we can make a prompt start on Wednesday morning. 09:00 - 09:05 A. Admin: scribe, participant list, charter, mailing lists 09:05 - 09:10 B. Agenda bashing 09:10 - 09:20 C. RIPE 41 minutes and actions [Has anyone seen the minutes from the last meeting? I've only seen those for the IPv6 Policy sessions] 09:20 - 09:40 D. Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters - Presentation [Sabrina Wilmot ?] 09:40 - 09:55 E. Report from the Address Council - Presentation [Hans Petter Holen ?] 09:55 - 10:30 F. IPv4 Assignment and Allocation Policy F.1 Do we need to bring the IPv4 assignment policy into line with the new (Nov 2001) "Minimum Allocation Criteria" policy? - Summary of problem [Sabrina Wilmot ?] - Proposed solution (?) - Discussion F.2 "Official Sub-Allocations" Proposal [Gert Doering] F.3 "MIR/SUB-LIR" Proposal (WG action from RIPE40) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20010701-20020101/msg00138.htm... Is this still needed following the implementation of "status: LIR-PARTITIONED" (documentation) or do we still need a more hierarchical allocation scheme (policy)? 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break 11:00 - 12:30 G. IPv6 Allocation Policy Can this community agree with the consensus reached at the recent APNIC and ARIN meetings? - Summary presentation [Mirjam Kuehne ?] - IPv6 WG Input [David Kessens ?] - Discussion - Consensus! 00:00 - 00:00 X. Any other business 00:00 - 00:00 Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting 00:00 - 00:00 Z. Open microphone

Hi, On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:23:10PM +0200, James Aldridge wrote:
F.2 "Official Sub-Allocations" Proposal [Gert Doering]
F.3 "MIR/SUB-LIR" Proposal (WG action from RIPE40)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20010701-20020101/msg00138.htm...
Is this still needed following the implementation of "status: LIR-PARTITIONED" (documentation) or do we still need a more hierarchical allocation scheme (policy)?
I think this is more or less the same agenda item - the "sub-allocation proposal" came from the MIR/SUB-LIR discussion, I just wrote it down :-) And yes, I think that discussion is needed whether LIR-PARTITIONED is enough or whether we need more "official hierarchy"... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 74810 (74196) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

F.3 "MIR/SUB-LIR" Proposal (WG action from RIPE40)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20010701-20020101/msg00138.htm l
Is this still needed following the implementation of "status: LIR-PARTITIONED" (documentation) or do we still need a more hierarchical allocation scheme (policy)?
As far as it goes the LIR-PARTITIONED status does not address our needs for a more structured allocation/assignment policy.
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering
-
James Aldridge
-
Stephen Burley