Interim summary of current discussions
Hi, The proposed interim policy was proposed to go into effect on the 7th september 2001. Since this date is getting closer, we would like to summarize the discussion so far. - comments from exchange point operators: In order to be neutral, they need independant address space for the services that they offer besides the addresses used for setting up peering relationships. - many comments that they can apply for regular address space, just like anybody else - many comments that it is too hard to get regular address space - we didn't see too many comments about the policy itself, until David Huberman asked the community: In lieu of any other policy changes, are you, as a RIPE member and participant in the LIR, EIX, and IPv6 WGs, in favor of the interim policy proposal for IPv6 address assignment policy for internet exchange points? - quite some people reacted and responded with a 'yes' - few comments were send earlier to the list that a policy might not be needed at all - several different proposals were sent to make it easier to get sTLA address space (which can be used by exchange points too) - most want to relax the current rules in some way or the other - people are worried about easier rules for special interest groups (eg. IXPs, small or big providers) - one completely different proposal was submitted that proposed to allocate a sTLA to exchange point operators which can be used to assign address space to customers - worry was expressed that the interim policy will not be as interim as suggested At this point, it looks like that the community is supportive of the interim policy but that there are still issues regarding address space needs other than for the exchange points customer peering sessions. These issues are not really part of the discussion regarding the interim policy but seems part of a grander discussion regarding the revision of allocation guidelines for ipv6 address space. We should be able to get progress on this topic on the next RIPE meeting (and on the mailing list before that). We appreciate all the input that we have had so far and we continue to encourage you to let your opinion known. Thanks, Fearghas McKay David Kessens EIX-WG Chair IPv6 wg Chair ---
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, David Kessens wrote:
In lieu of any other policy changes, are you, as a RIPE member and participant in the LIR, EIX, and IPv6 WGs, in favor of the interim policy proposal for IPv6 address assignment policy for internet exchange points?
- quite some people reacted and responded with a 'yes'
Correct me if I am wrong: * there were 3 responses * RIPE has more than 1000 members * 1 of the 3 respondents does not represent a RIPE member
- few comments were send earlier to the list that a policy might not be needed at all
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Jim, On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, David Kessens wrote:
In lieu of any other policy changes, are you, as a RIPE member and participant in the LIR, EIX, and IPv6 WGs, in favor of the interim policy proposal for IPv6 address assignment policy for internet exchange points?
- quite some people reacted and responded with a 'yes'
Correct me if I am wrong:
* there were 3 responses * RIPE has more than 1000 members * 1 of the 3 respondents does not represent a RIPE member
- few comments were send earlier to the list that a policy might not be needed at all
The purpose of this discussion is to reach 'rough consensus' on this new policy in the RIPE community - not necessarily just the RIPE NCC members. There is no need for everybody to react on the proposal. The goal is to give everybody a chance to participate in this discussion in the public and the assumption is that if people are not participating that they are not unhappy about the direction of the discussion as it is developing. For this reason, we posted an interim summary to the list in order to make sure that everybody is on the same page on the direction that the discussion is taking right now as perceived by the chairpeople. The summary is a very good chance for people who don't agree with the current direction of the discussion to voice their concerns and so far we have seen that indeed some objections have been raised. What's your opinion on the proposed policy ?!? Do you have strong objections why this policy should not go through, but you have suggestions with improvements that could make the policy reasonable in your eyes, or can you live with it as it is right now - but you might still have suggestions for improvement that we can use for the next version of the policy. Thanks, David K. ---
participants (3)
-
David Kessens -
David Kessens
-
Jim Dixon