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] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
leo vegoda
leo at ripe.net
Thu Sep 28 13:55:31 CEST 2006
Jordi, On 27 Sep 2006, at 11:56GMT+02:00, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view > in favor > or opposition to the proposal ? The current draft policy text in your proposal includes this paragraph: "Expiry for Assignments: Assignment blocks made under this proposal to address Multihoming issues must be returned to the RIPE NCC after a maximum period of three years. The three year period will run from the date that an alternative technically valid and deployable solution becomes available and is accepted by the Internet community. Any organisations that want to avoid renumbering would, at this time, be able to opt to become an LIR, if they qualify, and be allocated the same prefix." We have reviewed this text from the perspective of the organisation implementing the proposed reclaim process. There are a few areas where we are not sure what is intended. Firstly, in the summary section of your proposal you state that PI assignments are useful because they facilitate multihoming and ease the process of changing upstream provider. However, the expiry clause in your draft text starts with the phrase "Assignment blocks made under this proposal to address Multihoming issues". Does this mean that only those prefixes assigned to enable multihoming would be subject to reclaim by the RIPE NCC? Would assignments made to allow stable addressing when changing from one upstream to another not be subject to reclaim? Does the alternative technological solution need to solve the multihoming problem or the address stability problem, or both? Also, can you help us understand what you mean by "is accepted by the Internet community"? Would you expect us to survey network operators for their opinions on the suitability of proposed solutions, or should we look to other methods of determining acceptance, like a RIPE document going through the RIPE PDP? Many thanks, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]