[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.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:54:15 +0200
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19
> June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User
> Organisations)
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> On 29 May 2007, at 11:18pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> 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 put this in the policy text so that anyone
> considering a request will know whether they are likely to qualify or
> not.

Will do, thanks !

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> One of the three principles guiding the policy process is that "it is
> transparent. All discussions and results are documented and freely
> available to all."[1] If the criteria for a decision are too
> difficult to define in the policy text then there's something wrong
> somewhere.

I think in some situations, the staff needs to have some flexibility. Is not
a matter of wrong policy, is a matter of avoiding a complex one with too
many cases, because every ISP may be one, and we have already guidelines
such as RFC3177 and utilization, which the staff, I guess, uses to
understand if the right prefix is a /32 or a /30 or whatever. May be having
a reference to that is enough ?

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I think it's difficult to define a case justifying it, too. But that
> doesn't mean that unreasonable requests won't be made. And if you
> don't have a clearly defined set of criteria you make things
> needlessly difficult for both the requesters and the registry.

Same as above, if the utilization based on RFC3177 recommendations is a good
parameter, then the criteria can be defined in a simple way that accommodate
all the cases while hostmasters have a good point to check.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Leo Vegoda
> IANA Numbers Liaison
> 
> [1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html
> 




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