[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

I support the general idea of this proposal.


Med vänlig hälsning
Andreas Larsen
 
IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress:
S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala |
Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56
www.ip-only.se






Den 2013-09-27 12:25 skrev Tero Toikkanen <Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi>:

>Dear all,
>
>In general I support the direction of this proposal.
>
>I have already mentioned some of my observations on other ongoing
>conversations, but here are a couple more:
>
>5.2.3
>"results in a doubling of the address space allocated to it"
>With larger blocks this seems a bit drastic to me. I.e. if a large
>corporation needs a new /32, but already has 4 of them, they will
>automagically get 4 /32s more. I assume this is to enable aggregation,
>but without making large reservations in the address pool for each End
>User, it probably wouldn't work for that purpose. In order to assess how
>reasonable this clause is, we would need to know how addresses are
>allocated and from where. I my opinion aggregation = good, large
>reservations for every single End User with a /32 = bad.
>
>5.3.1
>"When more than a /48 is to be sub-allocated to the same customer, the
>LIR or the End User (via the Sponsoring LIR) must request an approval
>from the RIPE NCC."
>This is a bit vague wording, which would probably be better by just
>removing the parentheses. I assume the idea is that the End User submits
>the request to the Sponsoring LIR, which then hands it over to RIPE NCC?
>
>____________________________________
>Tero Toikkanen
>Nebula Oy
>