[address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Poli

Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOne,  26 Feb 2007 10:56:

> I fully support the proposal.

Me too. If it comes to a vote I would say yes.

> Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to
> advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the
> deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.

I'm still thinking about this point but right now I agree with Wilfried. I can 
imagine cases where allocated IPv6 is needed or very useful without connecting 
(now or during the next years) to the public internet or other private networks.

> I'd propose to reword it slightly along the lines of:
> 
> "If the prefix is advertised or announced towards the routing core it has
> to be advertised as, or aggregated into, a single announcement."

I like the idea of giving recommendations about this and pointing out what can
happen when violating them. But I'm not sure if this is the right place. Also for 
me it's not clear which consequences not announcing or not aggregating prefixes 
will have (besides the technical ones). I suppose in this case Ripe _may_ do something, 
not _must_ do something. Fine for me. Anyway I support the proposal as it is.

cheers,
Michael



-- 
Michael Adams                             Tel: +49 221 2222 657
Network Engineering & Design              Fax: +49 221 2222 7657

NetCologne                                Geschäftsführer
Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH    Werner Hanf
Am Coloneum 9                             Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel
50829 Köln                                HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln