<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="">Hello WG,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:</div><div class="">"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.“</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "<a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation" class="">https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation</a>" paragraph 2 (b)?</div><div class="">Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class="">Carsten</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <<a href="mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net" class="">mschmidt@ripe.net</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Dear colleagues,<br class=""><br class="">A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"<br class="">is now available for discussion.<br class=""><br class="">The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements<br class="">with the initial allocation requirements.<br class=""><br class="">You can find the full proposal at:<br class=""><br class=""> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05" class="">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05</a><br class=""><br class="">We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to<br class=""><<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net" class="">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> before 23 December 2016.<br class=""><br class="">Regards,<br class=""><br class="">Marco Schmidt<br class="">Policy Development Officer<br class="">RIPE NCC <br class=""><br class="">Sent via RIPE Forum -- <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum" class="">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum</a><br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>