[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of 
> Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
> Sent: Il-Ġimgħa, 16 ta' Ġunju 2006 12:14
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 
> 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and 
> Assignment Policy)
> 
> > Oh I could do that. But then... What the hell are policies 
> for anyway! 
> > That's the scope of this thread really.
> 
> Policies are there to guide RIPE members and RIPE NCC 
> employees. If you read RIPE-267 it says:
> 
>    d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 
>       assignments to other organisations within 
>       two years.
> 
> It doesn't say that you follow the plan exactly or the 
> addresses will be taken away. It does not say that you 
> forever give up your rights to change your plans. It does not 
> say that the plan must be accomplished without setting up new 
> business units. It does not require you to spend a specific 
> amount of money implementing your plan. It does not tell you 
> that you must have assigned 100 of those /48s by the end of 
> the next year.
> 
> This policy seems to have triggered something in our human 
> psychology because many people in many countries have reacted 
> to this wording like you have. For some reason, almost 
> everyone who reads this policy believes that it contains 
> requirements which are not written there.
> 
> For that reason alone, it should be changed. Criteria a), b), 
> and c) really are good enough reason to give an IPv6 /32 to an LIR.
> 
> But, we are talking about 2006-2 which also changes the text 
> of b) and  c):
> 
> a) be an LIR
> b) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organisations 
>    or to its own/related departments/entities/sites to 
>    which it will assign /48s by advertising that 
>    connectivity through a single aggregated address allocation 
> 
> and 
> 
> c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 
>    assignments within two years 
> 
> It seems like a reasonable change to me.
 
Excellent... That's the bottom line. So let's change it. What's the use of putting a plan together (I have one ready) whilst knowing full well at the back of one's mind that
A) I will be changing these plans
B) I have no way to know how I will accomplish this plan
C) I have no clue of the amount of money if any I can get approved to allocate towards plan and 
D) Many of my 'potential' /48 clients are completely as yet unconvinced on the need for v6

That is why I support the text as revised. I could even dare suggest an extra line wherein  beneficiaries of /32 should return allocations if unutilised within a term of X years. But that's a different story :)


> --Michael Dillon
>