[cooperation-wg] Internet governance

Roland,

Roland Perry wrote:

[...]

> Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right
> to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some
> considerable time).

I have to disagree. I don't think there was any "considerable time."

ripe-196 was published in mid-1999 and documented the "Provisional IPv6 
Assignment and Allocation Policy." It was called the "bootstrap" policy at 
the time and was intended as a 'shakedown' to allow the first 100 
allocations across all three RIR regions (this was before LACNIC and then 
AFRINIC achieved recognition, in-line with ICP-2). The idea was to find 
out what was good and what needed to change for a more permanent policy. 
It was an experiment.

At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been 
developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it 
did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later, 
with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 
Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points."

I've not searched through the lir-wg list archives but I don't remember 
the policy discussion being particularly contentious or long drawn out. 
The community rapidly recognised the technical need for PI space for IXP 
peering LANs and agreed language that is substantially the same as is used 
in the current policy document, ripe-451.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131121/19f7b198/attachment.p7s>