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

Hi Leo,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:00:37 -0400
> Para: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> CC: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Asunto: Re: [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 9:02am, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
> 
>> PDP Number: 2006-01
>> Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations
>> 
>> Dear Colleagues
>> 
>> The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has changed.
> 
> The new text has the following statement:
> 
>     "PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations:
>      The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger
>      assignment (shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented
>      and justified."
> 
> I am not sure what documentation and justification is required to
> qualify for a prefix shorter than a /48. What do I need to show the
> RIPE NCC before they would be able to assign my network a /47?

I just tried to keep it simple. I expect the Staff will use the same
criteria they use today for providing, for example, a /31 instead of /32.

> 
> It would be helpful to people considering requesting a PI IPv6 prefix
> and the RIPE NCC if the policy gave a clear statement of what is
> required.

Not sure if that's so easy, and I'm not really sure is really needed. Do you
have any idea ? We could also apply that "idea", may be, to the standard
IPv6 allocation policy.

It will be good to understand if the staff is having problems there, or it
is just enough the way they are doing and it may be applied then here the
same.

> 
> Also, the proposed text does not define a maximum size for an IPv6 PI
> assignment. When this is combined with a lack of definition for the
> qualification requirements it seems that a /32 of IPv6 PI could be
> assigned. Is that intended?

Not at all, it is not intended to assign a /32. However, if the case justify
it, we aren't closing the door. I really think it is difficult to find a
case that could justify that, in fact probably is very difficult to justify
cases that justify something shorter than /44, but you never know how big
can be a data center or content provider, for example.

> 
> 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.