[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

Carlos, Jordi,

thank you both for the heads up (I'm a little behind on the policy 
mailing list)


On 04/12/2017 01:28 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
>
>
> Hi Yanis, All,
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
>> Hi Yanis,
>>
>> That sounds surprising, but in any case, a few weeks ago, a new 
>> policy proposal to facilitate this has been approved. I think is 
>> already implemented or it will a matter of a few days, so you should 
>> not have any problem at all to justify an allocation for 1.6 millions 
>> of customers or even much more, with a /48.
>
> i.e. this message....... (if the estimation was correct, the 
> announcement will happen very soon!)
>
> ===========================
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:04:06
> From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 Proposal Accepted (Synchronising 
> the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Consensus has been reached on 2016-05,
> "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies".
>
> This policy change matches the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements
> with the initial allocation requirements. In addition to the existing
> justification based on past utilisation, it is now also possible to
> document new needs, including the number of users, the extent of the 
> organisation's
> infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of
> the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and
> the planned longevity of the allocation.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
>
> The new RIPE Document is ripe-684 and is available at:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684
>
> We estimate that this proposal will take around two weeks to fully 
> implement.
>
> We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete
> and the new procedures are in place.
>
> Thank you to everyone who provided input.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> ===========================
>
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Yannis 
>> Nikolopoulos <dez at otenet.gr>
>> Responder a: <dez at otenet.gr>
>> Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 11:24
>> Para: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
>> CC: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan at go6.si>, "ipv6-wg at ripe.net" <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
>> Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available 
>> for comments and suggestions
>>
>>    On 04/11/2017 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>    > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
>>    >
>>    >> 3.2.2: /48 for all is most practical & most pragmatic? How many 
>> /32 we
>>    >> need to burn for our end users? We have ~1.6M residential users 
>> and
>>    >> our /29 is definitely not enough. Is RIPE onboard with that?
>>    >
>>    > Yes. /48 per site is ok as per all IETF and RIPE documents I am 
>> aware of.
>>    >
>>    > So if your /29 is too small for your customer base, go get 
>> another one.
>>    > I know ISPs who returned their /29 before they even started serious
>>    > deployment, and received larger space. I encourage people to do 
>> just this.
>>    >
>>
>>    That's great to hear but when we upgraded our /32 to a /29 
>> (~2011), this
>>    was not the case unfortunately (meaning that RIPE would not accept 
>> our
>>    long term addressing plan as a reason enough to get multiple /29s
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>