[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6

+1 for the proposal

Am 24.11.2016 22:29 schrieb <address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net>:

> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
>         address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mailman.ripe.net/
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial
>       and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Silvia Hagen)
>    2. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial
>       and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
>    3. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial
>       and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Carsten Br?ckner)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:59:00 +0000
> From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen at sunny.ch>
> To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net"
>         <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal
>         (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
> Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E70ABF899B at hex02>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear WG
>
>
>
> I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of
> subsequent space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It
> also helps organizations, that have received their space before the updated
> initial allocation policy can receive space based on the same criteria.
>
>
>
> Silvia Hagen
>
> Chair Swiss IPv6 Council
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im
> Auftrag von Marco Schmidt
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20
> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising
> the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and
> Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
>
> is now available for discussion.
>
>
>
> The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation
> requirements with the initial allocation requirements.
>
>
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>
>
>     https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
>
>
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net>> before 23
> December 2016.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Marco Schmidt
>
> Policy Development Officer
>
> RIPE NCC
>
>
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-
> wg/attachments/20161124/9704a2bc/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:23:16 +0100
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal
>         (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
> Message-ID: <559CA103-A7B4-449B-A8F6-B30CA92FBA66 at consulintel.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I
> guess you?re right.
>
> The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to
> be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.
>
> I think it can be reworded as:
>
> ?If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide
> documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section
> 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure,
> the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the
> segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of
> the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.?
>
> If we want to get the subsequent allocation ?automatically synchronized?
> with the initial one, we should omit the text in ?()?. I think is the right
> way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed
> again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the
> text of the subsequent allocation.
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de
> Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Responder a: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39
> Para: <bruecknerc at gmail.com>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising
> the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
>
>     Hi Carsten,
>
>     Thanks for your support.
>
>     Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria
> as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and
> requieres some clarification ?
>
>     Regards,
>     Jordi
>
>
>     El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Br?ckner <bruecknerc at gmail.com>
> escribi?:
>
>
>
>     Hello WG,
>
>     I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a
> suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific
> needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a
> senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space
> management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6
> Deployment in large organizations.
>
>     But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:
>     "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
> documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the
> allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.?
>
>     Does that mean ?planned longevity? in sense of "
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-
> ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation" paragraph 2 (b)?
>     Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to
> synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?
>
>     Regards,
>     Carsten
>
>
>
>
>
>     Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>:
>
>     Dear colleagues,
>
>     A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and
> Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
>     is now available for discussion.
>
>     The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation
> requirements
>     with the initial allocation requirements.
>
>     You can find the full proposal at:
>
>         https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
>
>     We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>     <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Marco Schmidt
>     Policy Development Officer
>     RIPE NCC
>
>     Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     **********************************************
>     IPv4 is over
>     Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     http://www.consulintel.es
>     The IPv6 Company
>
>     This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>     **********************************************
>     IPv4 is over
>     Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     http://www.consulintel.es
>     The IPv6 Company
>
>     This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:29:33 +0100
> From: Carsten Br?ckner <bruecknerc at gmail.com>
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal
>         (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
> Message-ID: <FEF734DE-6977-4732-85A0-B195FDE25AFA at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Jordi,
> Perfect! Full Support :-)
> Regards,
> Carsten
>
> > Am 24.11.2016 um 22:23 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet at consulintel.es>:
> >
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I
> guess you?re right.
> >
> > The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to
> be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.
> >
> > I think it can be reworded as:
> >
> > ?If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide
> documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section
> 5.1.2. (number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure,
> the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the
> segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of
> the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.?
> >
> > If we want to get the subsequent allocation ?automatically synchronized?
> with the initial one, we should omit the text in ?()?. I think is the right
> way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed
> again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the
> text of the subsequent allocation.
> >
> > Saludos,
> > Jordi
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de
> Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> > Responder a: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> > Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39
> > Para: <bruecknerc at gmail.com>
> > CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal
> (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
> >
> >    Hi Carsten,
> >
> >    Thanks for your support.
> >
> >    Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria
> as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and
> requieres some clarification ?
> >
> >    Regards,
> >    Jordi
> >
> >
> >    El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Br?ckner <bruecknerc at gmail.com>
> escribi?:
> >
> >
> >
> >    Hello WG,
> >
> >    I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a
> suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific
> needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a
> senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space
> management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6
> Deployment in large organizations.
> >
> >    But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:
> >    "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
> documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the
> allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.?
> >
> >    Does that mean ?planned longevity? in sense of "
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-
> ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation" paragraph 2 (b)?
> >    Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to
> synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?
> >
> >    Regards,
> >    Carsten
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>:
> >
> >    Dear colleagues,
> >
> >    A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and
> Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
> >    is now available for discussion.
> >
> >    The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation
> requirements
> >    with the initial allocation requirements.
> >
> >    You can find the full proposal at:
> >
> >        https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
> >
> >    We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> >    <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
> >
> >    Regards,
> >
> >    Marco Schmidt
> >    Policy Development Officer
> >    RIPE NCC
> >
> >    Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    **********************************************
> >    IPv4 is over
> >    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> >    http://www.consulintel.es
> >    The IPv6 Company
> >
> >    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >
> >
> >    **********************************************
> >    IPv4 is over
> >    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> >    http://www.consulintel.es
> >    The IPv6 Company
> >
> >    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > IPv4 is over
> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> > http://www.consulintel.es
> > The IPv6 Company
> >
> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6
> ************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161125/c911b3d3/attachment.html>