[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI policy implemented

I guess in the case of NATO the new modifications to the existing policy,
that removes the 200 customers and allows organizations being "ISPs"
internally to the organization, is the right now for the NATO case. I recall
indeed someone from NATO indicated that to me some months ago.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:44:40 +0200
> Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI policy implemented
> 
> On Thursday 19 July 2007 08:40, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> As an example, NATO can also just as easily apply for space from ARIN
>> 
>> do you think nato wants a /48?
>> they want a /32 and will then chop it up and pollute the routing table.
> 
> Yes I guess they would and I doubt that NATO would go that way (note I'm not
> speaking for NATO today but on personal title here). The LIR way is probably
> the way to go. But on the other hand, how many sub-networks does NATO have?
> (A question that I won't answer but I guess one can assume that no potential
> PI customer has more than 65536 subnets (etc) today.)
> 
> 
> On Thursday 19 July 2007 09:04, Sascha Lenz wrote:
>> yes, "we" should do that, please send some troops to repacify the enemy
>> dorkheads, thank you
> 
> That approach is just what I question. Not to be cinical but the point I'm
> making is: If the RIPE region is against PI but PI is available from other
> sources without too much hassle. Do we expect that those that want it will
> not go for PI just because RIPE NCC does not offer it? Personally, if I'm
> internationally oriented, I'd go to ARIN or AfriNIC (depending where I have
> offices) and just get what I want. This makes that the RIPE community decides
> on PI less relevant. My point is, aren't we running the risk of being
> bypassed left and right just because we don't like it? If we do aren't we
> running the risk that being bypassed means that we can't influence it because
> other parts of the world already have decided for us.
> 
> I'm not trying to defend PI because I like it (I think it is unavoidable but
> that's not why I write this). I'm trying to say that the world seems to be
> moving on while we are discussing. IPv6 is a global commodity that can be
> procured anywhere for this scale of user. So if we don't provide it people
> buy it from our neighbor and we still have the "enemy" on the net without the
> posibility to have a say in it.
> 
> Best regards, Marc
> 
> PS can we keep the discussion a bit professional and leave words like the
> "enemy dorkheads" out of this?
> -- 
> Marc van Selm
> NATO C3 Agency
> CIS Division
> E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
> 




**********************************************
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.