[address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)

Maybe you are right, but it doesn't prove that is IS good in IPv6 world
too. I can't understand, why I should think about such private matters
(and  indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE's
policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the
public network called the Internet, then it's not the scope of our
thinking!

 

From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freedman at uk.clara.net] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:18 PM
To: Potapov Vladislav; nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New
Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address
Allocation Policy)

 

Vladislav, this is a function that the RIPE NCC have always provided, if
this relationship is truely private then I would suggest consulting
RFC1918 or RFC4193.

------------------------------------------------
David Freedman
Group Network Engineering
Claranet Limited
http://www.clara.net



-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of poty at iiat.ru
Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:12
To: nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New
Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address
Allocation Policy)

Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some
other organization (including mine) provide the registration and
supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a
company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their
PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving
that!


 Potapov
Ru.iiat

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM
To: Frederic
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New
Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address
Allocation Policy)

On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote:
> but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's
ask
> to LIR to garant routing.
>
> so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice
> for operator so it let choice to not garant routing.

from my other mail to this mailing list:

"- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the
Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the
address space for other entirely valid purposes."

Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which:

1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network
2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation
policy
3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private
ipv6
networks)

... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation?

Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network
in
the world?

Nick
--
Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick at inex.ie

[*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090529/820497b7/attachment.html>