[address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

On 22 May 2007, at 8:50pm, Sascha Lenz wrote:

[...]

> Simple IPv6 PI Assignment policy:

[...]

> - A recurring fee of 100EUR/y is charged from the RIPE NCC directely
>   or via the handling LIR

As you noted elsewhere, fee schedule decisions belong to the membership.

[...]

> - The assignment is at least a /48 from a dedicated supernet-block
>   which clearly identifies it as Provider Independent Prefix
> - A shorter prefix may be assigned if the end-site provides a network
>   plan and possible contracts with suppliers that hint that a /48
>   prefix might not contain enough subnets for the planned lifetime
>   of the assignment.

Hint? If prefixes shorter than /48 should not be the default  
assignment then I think we need more than a "slight or indirect  
indication or suggestion" that more than a /48 is required. If I just  
need to hint that I might possibly need more than a /48 over the next  
15 years to receive a /44, /40 or /32 then the policy is utterly broken.

If you want a free-for-all then propose a policy that clearly and  
unambiguously states that there is a free for all. If you want  
restrictions then propose a policy that clearly and unambiguously  
states what the qualifying criteria are.

Vague language makes things more difficult for requesters because  
they don't know if they qualify or not and so may be dissuaded from  
requesting something they need. It also makes things very awkward for  
the RIPE NCC staff. Without a clear set of criteria they aren't in a  
position to justify refusing an (apparently) unreasonable request.  
This is likely to lead to refusing all requests or approving all  
requests - but probably the latter.

Regards,

-- 
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison