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

Hi Jordi,

On 21 Jun 2007, at 7:38am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> 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.

2006-01 seems to have had a couple of dozen comments on it over the  
last month, actually. Are you referring to something else?

> 2006-02 is intended for entities that have their own network with  
> multiple
> sites.

I think the intention makes sense but the phrasing of the policy text  
needs some work.

It looks like you want an end site to qualify for a /32 IPv6  
allocation if it needs to make *any* size of assignment to multiple  
internal sites. But the text doesn't actually define what one of  
these internal sites is. That creates a problem for anyone that wants  
one of these /32 allocations because they can't work out if they  
qualify for it or ought to try and get a /47 (or whatever) under the  
IPv6 PI policy.

If the policy text is confusing it's going to create lots of extra  
work for the requesters and the RIPE NCC.

> 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 !

I think the issue still remains: 2006-01 and 2006-02 need to work  
together closely. Presumably, a network that does not qualify for a / 
47 should not qualify to receive a /32. Or should it?

If it should not then how does this policy text ensure that? Because  
as far as I can tell there isn't a good definition of what one of  
these 'final' sites is, so anyone can claim that every /64 in their  
internal network is a site and get a /32 allocation.

Regards,

-- 
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison