[ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC

Hi all,

Thank you for your work on this Jordi, and to you Nathalie for reaching out
to the community to seek input and clarification. While I do not know the
ins and outs of the technical side of IPv6, I care enough about its
deployment worldwide and know enough about policy to understand that
incongruent policy -- either in practice or on paper -- can often create a
rather massive headache.

Best,
-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia
Independent consultant & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador

Istanbul, Turkey
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:33 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

> Hi Nathalie,
>
> If it helps, the survey (http://survey.consulintel.es/index.php/175122)
> responses indicate right now (from 703 responses, about 200 from RIPE,
> missing responses from Russia that has got very few), only 76 ISPs
> providing /64, the rest is shared almost 50/50 among /48 and /56.
>
> I will try to get responses from Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Korea,
> China and India, which I guess have some deployment and almost didn’t
> responded at the time being.
>
> Then at the end of June, I will “clean” up duplicate responses (some times
> several folks respond from the same ISP).
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Nathalie Trenaman <
> nathalie at ripe.net>
> Responder a: <nathalie at ripe.net>
> Fecha: lunes, 13 de junio de 2016, 4:53
> Para: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
>
> >Dear colleagues,
> >
> >As you might know, the current IPv6 policy states very clear that
> assignments to customers must be a minimum of a /64.
> >
> >5.4.1. Assignment address space size
> >
> >End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The
> size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make,
> using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End
> Site).
> >
> >https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655
> >
> >On the other hand, a while ago, RFC7608 (BCP198) was published, stating:
> >
> >2.  Recommendation
> >   IPv6 implementations MUST conform to the rules specified in
> >   Section 5.1 of [RFC4632].
> >
> >   Decision-making processes for forwarding MUST NOT restrict the length
> >   of IPv6 prefixes by design.  In particular, forwarding processes MUST
> >   be designed to process prefixes of any length up to /128, by
> >   increments of 1.
> >
> >In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get an
> IPv6 assignment of any size, while the RIPE policy says the minimum should
> be a /64.
> >I’m interested to know what the community thinks about this and if
> alignment between this RFC and the RIPE policy is needed.
> >
> >
> >Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman
> >IPv6 Program Manager
> >RIPE NCC
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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 use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20160614/00878605/attachment.html>