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

Hi,

On 08/25/2014 10:10 PM, Nick Hilliard 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...

> tl;dr: don't support as-is, but could be convinced
 > Even better, remove the requirement completely as it's pointless.

It seems clear that we can't reach consensus on removing it completely, 
so I'm hoping for your support. Let's take baby steps so we can get at 
least some progress?

> 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.

The wording does not refer to route6 objects, only inet6num objects. The 
part about "globally routeable" refers to 2000::/3 so that people don't 
try to advance fc00::/7 or fec0::/10 address space (for example) as 
"theirs."

>> 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.

Our intention was to allow assignments by other LIRs or NIRs or whatever 
as well as RIRs.

Yours,

-- 
	+358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/
	Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy

	You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."