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

Hi Leo,

We are talking about two different things/cases.

Both proposals may seem as related, but actually they are not.

In fact, we can't relate both policy proposals also, because it is not clear
that 2006-01 will go further (at least not with the actual text), as I
didn't got inputs to my last replies to previous inputs :-( So it is
difficult for me to keep going w/o community review.

2006-02 is intended for entities that have their own network with multiple
sites. Those sites behave as end-sites to the "internal" ISP. This is for
example the case of Universities, or NATO (just to mention a clear case)
that already have indicated in the list their need. I don't see those as PI
cases, because they are by their own real ISPs, even if for the same entity,
they have their own NOC, staff, etc. to manage the network.

Instead 2006-01 is looking for PI cases, for example a data center.

So I don't see the need to stop 2006-02, and what it is really needed is to
get more input on 2006-01 !

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:35:34 +0200
> Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> CC: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address
> Allocation and Assignment Policy)
> 
> 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
> 




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