[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)

I believe the new proposal is much fairer to smaller ISPs, who currently are unable to justify assignments for IPv6. Currently we would not be able to assign 200 /48 in two years and therefore unable to receive IPv6 address space. However, until we are able to provide IPv6 connectivity, our customers won't request such IP addresses from us. And since our customers won't request them, we can't justify requesting from RIPE, who won't assign since we can't assign at lease 200 /48 in two years....

As shown this ends up in a deadlock situation and therefore IPv6 will only be available to larger ISPs.

I know IPv6 is still quite a new "feature" and therefore still not widely used, but unless ISPs get access to IPv6 address space, it won't be more widely used.

I'm definitely in favour of the new proposal.

______________________________________

Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards

Lars Lystrup Christensen
Network Engineer 
LLC11-RIPE


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Camilleri
> Sent: 24. oktober 2006 12:14
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
> Policy (2006-02)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not *there* are a
> big
> improvement on existing text particularly with the dropping of the
> requirement
> for 200 /48 assignments.
> 
> I fully support the new Proposal
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Stephen
> SC4079-RIPE
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
> > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI
> > PALET MARTINEZ
> > Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02
> > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and
> > Assignment Policy (2006-02)
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this
> > policy proposal.
> >
> > As the discussion period for this proposal
> > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is
> > almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in
> > order to further decide how to proceed.
> >
> > Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot
> > for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion
> > period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments.
> >
> > The stats don't include my own postings:
> >
> > >>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it.
> > >>>
> > >>> - 8 people supported it.
> > >>>
> > >>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy.
> > >>>
> > >>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a
> > clear support
> > >>> or objection.
> >
> > So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify
> > their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> >
> > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> > http://www.ipv6day.org
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >