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] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Jun 20 17:35:34 CEST 2007
On 4 Jun 2007, at 1:47pm, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2006-02 > IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy > > Dear Colleagues > > The proposal described in 2006-02 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and > the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy". I am unsure about the relationship between this proposal, which redefines end-sites and allows them to receive a /32 IPv6 allocation and 2006-01, which proposes the introduction of IPv6 PI assignments. Both proposals would allow networks that do not provide typical ISP services to receive IPv6 address space. Non-ISP networks obviously have a demand that needs to be met. 2006-01 would set the minimum prefix length for these assignments at / 48. Shorter prefixes could be assigned "if duly documented and justified" although how this would be done is not explained and ought to be clarified before that proposal is accepted, in my opinion. 2006-02 would allow end sites to receive an allocation and so they would get a minimum of a /32. It appears that if both proposals were accepted then anyone wanting more than a /48 PI assignment could receive a /32 allocation straight away as long as they have a plan to make a few internal assignments. In essence, it seems that the main difference between the two proposals is that anyone willing to pay to become an LIR can receive a /32 prefix even if they would otherwise fail to qualify for a far longer /47 prefix. I'm not sure if this is intentional. If it is not then it is possible that clarifying the basis for PI IPv6 assignments shorter than /48 in 2006-01 would remove the need for 2006-02 entirely. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]