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

Hi Jordi

You are right.

The policy comparison document is updated every six months in collaborative 
work among the 4 RIR  we are just about to released the newest version soon.

LACNIC is right now applying a different IPv6 initial allocation policy. 
The rest of the document remains the same as the original common IPv6 
policy.   This issue was discussed during LACNIC V in last november and 
implemented in february this year.

LACNIC community had consensus about get rid of 200 /48 assignments, demand 
the announcement  of the entire IPv6 block before the 12 months and asked 
for IPv6 based services before the 24 months.

It is important to mention also that LACNIC do not allocate IPv6 address to 
closed networks at this moment. This topic has been also a point of 
discussion among the differentescommunities.

I add the text for the initial IPv6 allocation policy at LACNIC

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

At 06:04 AM 6/22/2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

>Hi Mohsen,
>
>http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/rir-comparison.html
>Looking at the LACNIC site, I believe this is not updated. I think same 
>for ARIN.
>
>Regarding the critical infrastructure, I fully support a policy change on 
>this in RIPE.
>
>Regards,
>Jordi
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mohsen Souissi" <Mohsen.Souissi at nic.fr>
>To: "David Kessens" <david at iprg.nokia.com>
>Cc: "Laura Cobley" <laura at ripe.net>; <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:45 AM
>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial 
>allocation criteria "d)"
>
>
> > David & all,
> >
> >  On 21 Jun, David Kessens wrote:
> >  |
> >  | Laura,
> >  |
> >  | On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote:
> >  | >
> >  | > During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to 
> co-ordinate
> >  | > work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to
> >  | > propose any policy changes.
> >  |
> >  | During the meeting, I asked you not to waste your time on this. Since
> >  | the policy is already changing in the other regions, our time would be
> >  | better spend to move forwards, instead of stalling the policy
> >  | development process by spending time on 'clarifications'.
> >  |
> >  | I would like to ask the working group whether we can ask the RIPE NCC
> >  | to summarize the different changes made to the policy in the other
> >  | regions, so that we can have a discussion on which changes are
> >  | appropriate.
> >
> > ==> If it is deemed that it would be worth proceeding now to the
> > Policy change (instead of simply clarifing it as it was initially
> > intended), let me please draw your attention to the following web page
> > at APNIC site, which compares RIR implementations of the global IPv6
> > Policy and which may be useful as a start:
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/rir-comparison.html
> >
> > By the way, you can have a look at section 3.4.1 ("Critical
> > Infrastructure") which describes, AFAIK, somtehing which is
> > implemented only in APNIC region and which would be useful for ccTLDs
> > in Europe (for instance, .de and .fr to name a few of them).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mohsen.
> >
> >
>
>
>**********************************
>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
-------------- 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