[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

Hi All

At 03:09 PM 6/21/2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

>Today RIPE is trusting you for the 200 customers commitment, but I don't 
>think this is the point.
>
>Why not compare with the IPv4 allocations ? Is there any minimum number of 
>customers in x years ?
>
>LACNIC, I believe, is also just granting the /32 if you commit to route it 
>in some years (not sure how many), independently of how many customers you 
>bring up.

It is one year and offer some kind of IPv6 services before 24 months after 
the allocation is made.

Full list of initial allocation is as follow

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization 
must:

a) Be a LIR or an ISP;
b) Not be an end site (end user);
c) Document a detailed plan for the services and IPv6 connectivity to be 
offered to other organizations (clients)
d) Announce a single block in the Internet inter-domain routing system, 
aggregating the total IPv6 address allocation received, within a period not 
longer than 12 months.
e) Offer IPv6 services to clients physically located within the region 
covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than 24 months.


Regards

German Valdez
LACNIC

>Regards,
>Jordi
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sascha Luck" <ripe-lst at eirconnect.net>
>To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial 
>allocation criteria "d)"
>
>
> > On Monday 21 June 2004 18:31, Gert Doering wrote:
> >
> > > If you estimate that you will continue to be very small, you could use
> > > a /40 or such from one of your upstream ISPs (which is a problem *today*,
> > > as there are not enough upstream ISPs, indeed).
> >
> > I could get native IPv6 connectivity from 3 upstreams today (OK, only 
> from 2
> > for commercial purposes). TTBOMK, no multihoming facility exists 
> without your
> > own /32 allocation (considering aggregation, probably just as well).
> >
> > > If you are in good hope to reach more than 200 customers, you fulfill
> > > the criteria (as has been mentioned before).
> >
> > Of course, I'm in good hope of reaching that goal. If that's good 
> enough, fine
> > but how do I document this hope? Will the NCC take my word for it? ;)
> >
> > > You are wrong on this :-) - the policy was discussed again and again at
> > > various RIPE meetings in the past 5 years.  We had an interim policy, 
> which
> > > was bad, but better than none.  Then we had this policy, which is still
> > > not perfect, but enabled us to make progress.
> >
> > Fair enough. I've only attended sporadically in the last few years, so 
> this
> > may well have slipped past me. Mea culpa.
> >
> > > Quite a number of people from various regions insisted on it, at that 
> time,
> > > for fear of a "landrush" or "routing table explosion" (routing table 
> slots
> > > *are* a scarce resource indeed, but changing this policy to "every LIR
> > > in existance today gets one" won't hurt *that* much).
> >
> > Well the landslide hasn't happened as far as I can see :) Even though 
> I'd love
> > to see it happen.
> > The routing table does need to be considered, but it still is IMO a 
> technical
> > problem. Although it seems there is a shift in v4 policies away from
> > aggregation in favour of conservation (no more reservations for contiguous
> > address space, etc)
> >
> > > The way people work, usually only those who are unhappy take the burden
> > > to figure out *where* to voice their unhappiness...
> >
> > Hmm, reminds me of the recent European elections ;)
> >
> > > So shall we abandon it?  In favour of *what* to replace it?
> >
> > My proposal would be similar to the ARIN (I think) one:
> > Any LIR in good standing is entitled to a /32 with justification for any
> > follow-up allocation.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Sascha Luck
> > Eirconnect
> >
> >
>
>
>**********************************
>Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
>Presentations and videos on line at:
>http://www.ipv6-es.com
>
>This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
>confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
>individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
>that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
>information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 6/15/2004

German Valdez
LACNIC
Potosí 1517
Montevideo 11500 - Uruguay
Tel: +598 2 606 2822
Fax: +598 2 601 5509
www.lacnic.net 
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 6/15/2004