Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)

Hi,

Both of these proposals change the onus on an LIR from having "... a plan 
for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two 
years." to having "... a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other 
organisations within two years."

While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. 
Why 200 assignments?

I can see that this is meant to prevent the numberspace becoming too 
fractured, so reducing the size of the routing table.  However, I worry 
that it may have the side effect of imposing a hierarchy of ISPs within 
IPv6 that does not meet the requirements of smaller organisations. It 
seems there is little interest at present within the larger UK-based ISPs 
in providing IPv6, (with the exception of NTT-Verio), and this change 
won't affect that. Is there a better way to encourage the uptake of IPv6 
without preventing exponential routing table growth?

Ian
 
----- Forwarded by Ian Meikle/Nominet on 27/07/06 15:53 -----



Filiz Yilmaz <filiz at ripe.net> 
Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
27/07/06 12:42
Please respond to
filiz at ripe.net


To
policy-announce at ripe.net
cc
Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net>, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis at kurtis.pp.se>, 
Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject
[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to 
Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)







PDP Number: 2005-08
Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy


Dear Colleagues

As you might remember, it was decided during RIPE 51 that the
proposal described in 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6
Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" should be split into
two parts.

Accordingly, we have published two draft documents.

You can find the draft documents at:

 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s.html
  defining allocation efficiency measurement unit as /56

and

 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-hd-ratio.html
  changing the HD ratio value to 0.94

You can find the full proposal at:

    http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html

We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any
comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 August 2006.

Kind regards, 

Filiz Yilmaz
RIPE NCC 
Policy Development Officer