[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)

On 15 apr 2009, at 11:11, Remco van Mook wrote:

>
> ..or you can file a proposal to change the current policy. You’re  
> very obviously trying to solve a problem and I don’t disagree that  
> the problem exists; I just don’t like the proposed solution.


All,

Let's assume you have a seperate entity in your company, which  
operates in a different geographical region under it's own AS and  
routing policy. Only one company (the holding for instance) is an LIR  
in the  current situation.

How do you solve this at the moment iin IPv4-land ? How many of you  
actually use RIPE-449 section 5.4 and won't PI solve your problem ?

I'm happy with a proposal to include similair wording as seciotn 5.4  
into RIPE-450 as long as it comes with a big disclaimer saying it's at  
your own risk and routing as always isn't guaranteed (point to 450,  
4.2). At the same time we can set boundaries onto it to ease up  
filttering, like in the v4 case.

As it stands I won't support the proposal as-is, it's far to specific  
and it harms fairness as the only requirement is an AS number and no  
references are made to HD-ratio or the regular subsequent allocation  
policy.

Groet,

MarcoH