[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

Hi,

El 04/04/2005, a las 6:57, Hans Petter Holen escribió:

> Dear all,
> Please find enclosed a policy proposal from Andy Furnell.
> My proposal is to enter this proposal into the Discussion Phase with a  
> time line of 4 weeks  ending on May 9the allowing the discusssion to  
> continue over the RIPE meeting.
>
>
> 1. Number #gamma
> 2. Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
> 3. Author
>   a. name: Andy Furnell
>   b. e-mail: andy at linx.net
>   c. telephone: +44 (0) 20 7645 3519
>   d. organisation: London Internet Exchange (LINX)
> 4. Proposal Version: 1
> 5. Submission Date: 4/4-2005
> 6. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG 7.  
> Proposal type: modify
>   a. new, modify, or delete
> 8. Policy term: renewable
>   a. temporary, permanent, or renewable.
> 9. Summary of proposal:
>   The proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria
>   outlined in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy"    
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html). The proposed
>   change is to remove "have a plan for making at least 200 /48    
> assignments to other organisations within two years" and to
>   remove the reference to "/48s" as the assignment size.
>
> 10. Policy text
>    a. Current (if modify):
>
>    5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
>
>    To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
>    organisation must:
>
>    a) be an LIR;
>
>    b) not be an End Site;
>
>    c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which
>       it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its
>       single aggregated address allocation; and
>
>    d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
>       organisations within two years.
>
>    b. New:
>
>    5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
>
>    To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
>    organisation must:
>       a) be an LIR;
>
>    b) not be an End Site;
>
>    c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and
>    customers to which it will make assignments by advertising that     
> connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation.
>
>

I guess that it may make sense to define a time frame here... i mean,  
an organization planning to provide IPv6 connectivity in 20 years would  
qualify here?

Regards, marcelo



> 11. Rationale:
>    a. Arguments supporting the proposal
>    Many LIRs' networks do not have 200 customers to make assignments    
>  to but still maintain autonomous network and addressing policies.     
> These require address space that is both aggregatable and independent
>    from that of their peers. In addition, a /48 assignment is not     
> always appropriate; ISPs might have different plans for the size    of  
> the assignments they will make and the policy should not stand    as  
> an obstacle for them. Such a change in the policy will also make     
> IPv6 allocations more accessible and could result in the acceleration   
>   of IPv6 development.    b. Arguments opposing the proposal    With  
> such a change in the policy, every LIR operating an autonomous
>    network would be able to receive an IPv6 allocation. The worst     
> case scenario would be a number of allocations equal to the number of   
>   LIRs in the RIPE region.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----
>