[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
> El 03/07/2014 17:38, Gert Doering escribió:
> > I think from a community consensus building pov, we have had clear feedback
> > that if this is to be considered as a policy at all, it needs to be fleshed
> > out in much more specific detail, also taking the cons into account.
> >
> > As in:
> >
> >   - who will get extra address space?  exactly under which conditions?
> New LIRs created after 14th of September 2012 will recieve extra address 
> up to another /22 (in lesser chunks) if they can:
>      - Prove they really need the space, not only looking at assignements
>      - In the cases of dhcp, the lease time are set to minimum possible 
> without saturating their networks with dhcp messages.
>      - Prove they have IPv6 5 star ripeness, IPv6 provisioned and 
> deployed from the core network to customer (customers with compatible 
> equipment should be able to connect with IPv6)

How can RIPE NCC IPRAs verify that these requirements are met?

How can you prevent abuse?  (Like, "all 1024 addresse must respond to
ping!" - that's more easily achieved by faking it than if you connect
real customers that have firewalls...)

Rulese need to be a) easily verifable for someone not at your network, 
and b) not so easy to just circumvent.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140704/6fb44f9a/attachment.sig>