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

Hello,

On 09/08/2014 06:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> 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."

> In that case it would probably be advisable to refer to IANA designated
> Global Unicast address space rather than "globally routable":

> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space

The definition we had written is as follows:

[O]rganisations are eligible to receive an allocation from the final /8 
if they have an inet6num object registered in the RIPE Database or any 
of the other RIR databases mirrored by the RIPE NCC.

This will validate the address space on both the macro and the micro 
level. I think this is a more convenient definition than referring to 
the IANA database. Do you disagree?

The above definition is in the summary of the proposal instead of the 
proposed policy text change. It should make it into the supporting notes 
of the policy. We wrote it like this, because we think that this is the 
way it's usually done. The policy text is more generic and the 
supporting notes go into the nitty gritty detail.

Yours,

-- 
	Aleksi Suhonen

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