[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bartek Gajda
gajda at man.poznan.pl
Wed Apr 15 10:50:26 CEST 2009
Remco van Mook wrote: > > Hang on a second. This is now devolving into a proposal where you can > get a separate AS and /32 for every customer your LIR serves and I > will definitely not support that. I want a pony, too. > > Remco But I do not need any new AS.The current policy for getting AS number is fine for me! I only need to announce a "production quality" IPv6 allocation which is /32 within each AS I have. And I am in ONE geographical location. Can this policy take care of me (and not only me)? So I only recommend to remove this statement about "unconnected geographical areas" because this reflect only some too narrow LIRs' situation. Best regards, Bartek > > On 15-04-09 10:08, "Bartek Gajda" <gajda at man.poznan.pl> wrote: > > Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > > > On 14 apr 2009, at 14:57, Ingrid Wijte wrote: > > > >> PDP Number: 2009-05 > >> Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs > >> > >> Dear Colleagues > >> > >> A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > >> discussion. > > Summary of Proposal: > > This is a proposal to allow an LIR operating separate networks in > > unconnected geographical areas to receive multiple /32 IPv6 > allocations. > > This policy is a must-have policy for hundreds of thousand users in my > county and more than 20 LIRs. However there is a strong limitation for > me in this policy, because we are using at least two different > policies > but within ONE single geographical areas. The differences in routing > policies are not because of different geographical areas but > because of > different kind of customers we are serving. > Currently we have to divide single /32 into multiple pieces and > announce > them under different ASs we have, which weak but the only possible > solution. We do not have any chance to get a second /32 from RIPE > so far. > > It would be really helpful to reflect this real life situation in > single > policy like this one. So after removing the part about "different > unconnected geographical areas" this policy will get strong > support from > LIRs I'm writing about. > > Best regards, > Bartek Gajda > > > > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its > associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted > with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally > privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you > have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: > Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, > London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]