IPv6 request form for Internet Exchange Points

All,

When concluding the discussion on IPv6 addresses for IXPs, the RIPE
NCC were under the impression that participants in the discussion felt
that they had had ample time to discuss the final proposed policy.

Mirjam sent out a summary on the lists 28 June 2001 after the intense 
discussion both at the last RIPE meeting and on the mailing lists.
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20010401-20010701/msg00
228.html)

There were a few comments on actual wording that Mirjam took into 
account, but no further discussion. No objections were raised to the 
proposed definition. 

The RIPE NCC has several pending requests for IPv6 address space from
IXPs that have been waiting since April. After such lengthy discussion
and no further input from the community, we therefore felt that it
would be appropriate to move forward and implement the concluded
policy in order to meet the need of these LIRs.

We do of course recognise the great importance of ensuring that the
policy that the RIPE NCC implements is the one agreed upon by the
community. This is essential.

We also recognise the need for improving the co-ordination between the
working group chairs and the RIPE NCC. We hope to discuss this further
with the chairs. 

Some comments have been made on the list suggesting the RIPE NCC to
not further postpone the evaluation of the currently pending IXP
requests. If this reflects the general feeling in the community, then
the RIPE NCC is ready to move forward and do so. 

If however, there is a need for further discussion, then we wish to
encourage everyone to actively contribute with their comments. I hope
that there is no need to postpone this discussion until the RIPE 40
meeting in October. 

I trust the working group chairs to propose a way forward that will
ensure a fair and correct conclusion of this discussion.

Kind regards,

Nurani

*--------------------------------------------------------*
| Nurani Nimpuno                      <nurani at ripe.net>  |
| Internet Address Policy Manager                        |
| RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre                      |
| http://www.ripe.net                                    |
*--------------------------------------------------------*     


 "Hans Petter Holen" <hph at online.no> writes:
 * | Agreed!!! I understand the need to ensure complete consensus 
regarding
 * | allocation, but *please* can we aim for a temporary work around 
to allow
 * | us to get an allocation using the existing document.
 * | 
 * | We could review the interim allocations once the consensus is 
finally
 * | reached, and supply any new information then _if_ needed. But as 
Robert
 * | says, this has gone on far too long already!
 * 
 * Would this be a way to proceede;
 * introduce the procedure proposed by Nurani as an interim procedure
 * in order to get this thing rolling ?
 * 
 * Nothing is worse than technology and customers waiting for 
politicians
 * to make up their mind...
 * 
 * 
 * -hph
 *