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] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri May 4 15:50:25 CEST 2018
Hi Sebastian, As said, is just an idea, and I'm not yet nailing down all the details, but I don't think, in general, and ISP that has advanced his deployment, will renumber ... so of course I will not suggest that as mandatory, only an option in case some want to do (there are a few ISPs that got their /29 and didn't deployed IPv6 at all, so it make sense for them). On the other side, it will be nice, in order to understand how much is the impact of this, if the NCC can provide a summary of how many of the actual RIRs that have a non-nibble boundary allocation, will not be able to get it upgraded to the nibble-boundary one because the precedent space has been already allocated to someone else, etc. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian at karotte.org> Fecha: viernes, 4 de mayo de 2018, 6:52 Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> [2018-05-02 14:26]: > Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the > other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our > policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. > This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to > "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28. Hi, I'm not sure I see the big benefit of upgrading to a /28 but on a purely technical standpoint, "upgrading" is not possible in most cases because RIPE NCC did not reserve a complete /28 for every LIR. So you would end up with two /29 or you'd have to renumber your /29 to a new /28. Both options don't sound appealing to me. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]