[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)

I mostly agree with Elvis.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 25/08/14 14:59, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>>  On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie
>>  <mailto:nick at inex.ie>> wrote:
>>
>>      On 25/08/2014 19:47, Gert Doering wrote:
>> >  while I can understand that beaches and drinks are more
>>      attractive than
>> >  policy work, we have a proposal here that needs a bit of caring -
>> >  this one is in Review Phase until Friday, and has received
>>      exactly one
>> >  comment yet (strong support).  I could use a *bit* more feedback
>>      here...
>> 
>>
>>  Whoops, sorry about that!
>>
>>  Beach-and-drink time was over a month ago!
> some are still at the beach :)
>> 
>>
>>      tl;dr: don't support as-is, but could be convinced
>>
>>      --
>>
>>      I support the idea as it's a bugfix policy proposal, but the
>>      wording is
>>      need to be improved.  At the moment, it ties the policy to the
>>      idea of the
>>      RIPE NCC being the routing police.  Probably this isn't the intention.
>> 
>>
>>  I think you're right about that.
> I would go as far as to say, as long as you have/use IPv6 (no matter which 
> color and from whom) you can request the last /22. I would also accept a 
> change proposal that would completely remove this requirement and believe 
> it's even a better idea.
>> 
>>
>>      It may be better to consider alternative wording, e.g.
>> 
>> >  An allocation will only be made to a LIR if the LIR has already been
>> >  assigned or allocated an IPv6 address block from a RIR.
>>
>>      Even better, remove the requirement completely as it's pointless.
>> 
> +1
>>
>>  I'm not convinced that it's a pointless requirement, but I concur that the
>>  wording needs to be changed a bit before I feel comfortable with it.
>>
>>  As it is, however, I don't feel strongly either way about this part of the
>>  policy, but a clearer policy is something I'll support. :)
>>  --
>>  Jan
>
> Kind regards,
> Elvis
> -- 
> <http://v4escrow.net> 
>
>
> Elvis Daniel Velea
>
>
>   Chief Business Analyst
>
> Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
> EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914
>
> Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
>
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, 
> proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this 
> email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the 
> original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
>
>

mvh

Daniel Stolpe

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 45 094							      556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm