This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] policy proposal status
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hpholen at tiscali.no
Mon Jul 11 12:36:54 CEST 2005
Dear WG, I find it dfficult to see a clear consensus on this proposal. While I do sense some consensus for a change, there is no clear consensus to completely remove the 200 customer requirement. I will ask the RIPE NCC to assist the author to take into accounts the concerns raised in the discussion and see if the proposal can me adjusted to take this into account. I will further point to the summary made by Filiz Yilmaz http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2004/msg00427.html on the changes that has been made in other regions. In addition I would like to point the author to the ARIN policy where being an exisiting LIR and an existing IPv4 customer base and infrastructure can be used to qualify for v6 space as one possible way forward. We will restart the discussion when thee is a revised proposal. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy Chair > 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. > > > 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. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] policy proposal status
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]