This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Pels
martin.pels at ams-ix.net
Fri Sep 19 11:31:27 CEST 2014
Hi Nick, On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:36:30 +0100 Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote: > You still haven't made it clear what you're trying to do here. > > - if you're suggesting that an organisation with a PA assignment (or > equivalent) of /128 from some random LIR-type organisation anywhere in the > world should be eligible for a last-/8-allocation, then this is basically > meaningless and you would be better off removing the rule completely. The > reason for this is that the policy is intended to encourage LIRs to deploy > IPv6 for the end-users and provider-associated address space is pretty > meaningless for LIRs in this regard. It is not a good idea to create > policy which can be satisfied by tick-box compliance. > > - alternatively, if it's your intention that only provider independent / > allocation style address space be used for this policy, you need to state > that. From my understanding of the original intention of the policy, this > would be most appropriate in this situation. > > From the point of view of the policy development process, you need to make > it clear because there's an important semantic difference here which you're > glossing over. You are correct in that having received a small IPv6 PA assigment from another LIR may not be enough for deploying IPv6 to end-customers. But I could argue that having this PA assignment actually deployed in your network is more meaningful than having requested your own PA allocation without doing anything with it (which would satisfy the policy as it is now). The aim of the original policy rule is to make sure that when an organization requests space from the last /8 they know about IPv6 and have taken a first step towards deployment by acquiring an IPv6 block. I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with where that address block comes from (PI, another RIR or somewhere else). Kind regards, Martin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]