[ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> I have some questions about the proposal
>> Question 1:
>> Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or 
>>even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", which according to my understanding would be 
>>more in line with the IPv4 world and the proposal states it "...is largely designed 
>>based on the current IPv4 practice..."?
>> Besides that, ASSIGNED PA is the 'lowest status' in the IPv4. Using the term 
>>SUB-ASSIGNED PA higher in the hierarchy than ASSIGNED PA in IPv6 world 
>> might only create confusion.

>It has to be unique so we can implement some basic rules on wether the 
>assignment-size attribue is mandatory, other then that the exact naming can be
>anythingmwe like. I picked this becuase it makes sense to me.

I like the response of Denis about this in his mail of 7-9-2010 14:09:
"The term "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" may be easier to understand. It's meaning in the IPv6 world would be slightly different to the same status value in the IPv4 world. But both can be partly described as "a sub set of an allocation from which assignments are made"."

>> Question 2:
>> Also, when putting such an inetnum object on the RIPE database, would it require
>> approval from the RIPE NCC if the (initial) sub-'assignment' exceeds a /48 (in 
>>relation with RIPE-481 chapter 5.4.2)?

>No you shouldn't, probably as long as assignment-size >> /48

I think it would be wise to explicitely mention this in the proposal and new policy text, to ensure that we don't create confusion for both IPRAs and LIRs.


With kind regards,


ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema
KPN IP-Office
kpn-ip-office at kpn.com
+31 70 45 13398