[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

I support this policy.

Best regards,
Robert Güntensperger


|-----Original Message-----
|From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
|admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais
|Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:43 PM
|To: 'DI. Thomas Schallar'; 'RIPE Address Policy Working Group'
|Cc: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
|Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal
|(Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
|
|Hi Thomas,
|
|A quick update on the status of 2011-02 policy.
|
|I spoke with the AP-WG-chair last week and the decision is that there
|will
|be an extended review period to give people the time to ask questions if
|needed on the proposal.
|
|So to everyone on the list, let's hear it.
|
|I've done a presentation on RIPE62 on the proposal for those not
|familiar
|with 2011-02 and you can find the PPT here :
|http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/171-2011-02_ripe62.ppt
|
|You can read the policy proposal itself here:
|http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02
|
|In short, the policy proposal is to remove the multi-homing requirement
|for
|PI IPv6.
|Currently, companies can become a LIR and get IPv6, with no multi-home
|requirement, same with requesting IPv4 PI.
|And companies that don't want to or (legally) can't become a LIR but do
|want
|to have their own IPv6 addresses are required to be multi-homed.
|
|The only change in text in the RIPE-512 is:
|
|Remove the line:
|
|a) demonstrate that it will be multihomed
|
|For those that agree with the policy and everything is clear, express
|your
|support on the AP-WG-mailing list your support.
|
|Kind regards,
|Erik Bais
|Co-author of 2011-02
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5255 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110808/6655435d/attachment.p7s>