This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com
Wed Apr 15 10:35:01 CEST 2009
Hang on a second. This is now devolving into a proposal where you can get a separate AS and /32 for every customer your LIR serves and I will definitely not support that. I want a pony, too. Remco On 15-04-09 10:08, "Bartek Gajda" <gajda at man.poznan.pl> wrote: > Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> > >> > On 14 apr 2009, at 14:57, Ingrid Wijte wrote: >> > >>> >> PDP Number: 2009-05 >>> >> Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs >>> >> >>> >> Dear Colleagues >>> >> >>> >> A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for >>> >> discussion. >> > Summary of Proposal: >> > This is a proposal to allow an LIR operating separate networks in >> > unconnected geographical areas to receive multiple /32 IPv6 allocations. > > This policy is a must-have policy for hundreds of thousand users in my > county and more than 20 LIRs. However there is a strong limitation for > me in this policy, because we are using at least two different policies > but within ONE single geographical areas. The differences in routing > policies are not because of different geographical areas but because of > different kind of customers we are serving. > Currently we have to divide single /32 into multiple pieces and announce > them under different ASs we have, which weak but the only possible > solution. We do not have any chance to get a second /32 from RIPE so far. > > It would be really helpful to reflect this real life situation in single > policy like this one. So after removing the part about "different > unconnected geographical areas" this policy will get strong support from > LIRs I'm writing about. > > Best regards, > Bartek Gajda > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090415/ce1548bf/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]