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]/
[ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Valeriu Vraciu
valeriu at roedu.net
Thu Jan 27 09:01:02 CET 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 1/26/11 9:36 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:40:54PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: >> We have not received any input so far whether you support draft policy >> 2010-06. While silence will in general be interpreted as consensus, we >> prefer to have a good number of statements of support as that will make it >> unequivocally clear that consensus was indeed reached. > > I oppose on grounds of paragraph 2 of "Arguments Opposing the Proposal". > > The only one who needs the assignment size is RIPE NCC when evaluating > new allocation requests or in audit. At that time, it's easy for the LIR > to provide this info to NCC for HD ratio evaluation. Following the > spirit of data protection, we shouldn't put (in a mandatory manner) more > potentially sensitive data into public databases without a good > justification for the need to have that data public. > > As a second reason, it allows folks running block lists to again start > blocking dynamic customer IP prefixes by automatically looking up the > assignment-size. Of course that makes no sense (as the /xy prefix will > belong to another customer next day), but as soon as those assignment-size > attributes will pop up, misguided folks _will_ start using them for > broken heuristics and cause colateral damage. > > My opposition is solely about the assignment-size attribute being > mandatory. > > Best regards, > Daniel > Hi, I agree with Daniel's arguments regarding the mandatory and visible status of the proposed new "assignment-size" attribute. Regards, Valeriu. ================================= Valeriu VRACIU Network Engineer at RoEduNet tel: +40 (232) 201003 fax: +40 (232) 201200 GSM: +40 (744) 615251 e-mail: valeriu.vraciu at roedu.net ================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1BJj0ACgkQncI+CatY9492fwCgiELB3MnMtLYpI1R/INqTgzsZ /DEAninsMzBnbJGgTVA+qfzMg2OoOTYl =JnxM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]