[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 5

Вторник, 11 июня 2013, 12:00 +02:00 от address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net:
> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC	Members (Peter Koch)
>    2. Policy Proposal 2012-10 "Extension of IPv6 /32	to /29 on a
>       per-allocation vs per-LIR basis" implemented (Kjell Leknes)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:20:30 +0200
> From: Peter Koch < pk at DENIC.DE >
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Resource Certification for non-RIPE
> NCC	Members
> To: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net,  address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: < 20130610152030.GK14598 at x28.adm.denic.de >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 03:32:31PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
> 
> > Whether we need a formal "policy" or just an agreement (amongst the members
> > of the NCC) to a Service Description and a review of the CPS as maintained
> > by the NCC is a sideline issue, imho.
> >
> > For now using the framework of the PDP maybe useful and appropriate.
> 
> I respectfully suggest it is not.  The current modus operandi for RPKI
> in the NCC service region is not only not based on a policy created
> by the PDP, it exists despite a policy proposal for that very subject
> having failed.  Whether or not that creates a schism might be interesting
> to discuss, but is not relevant for the case at hand.  What counts here is
> that the absence of policy is not an 'omission' or accident.
> 
> So far I have seen support for 2013-04 based on symmetry or equality of
> PA, PI and other (former) special cases. While this might have merit
> operationally, it cannot support a parallel policy just because there's
> nothing to draw the parallel to.  This point of order has not been addressed
> so far (and there are multiple solutions to this situation).
> 
> Therefore I formally object to 2013-04 being elevated into the next PDP phase.
> 
> -Peter
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:43:29 +0200
> From: Kjell Leknes < kjell at ripe.net >
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal 2012-10 "Extension of
> IPv6 /32	to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis" implemented
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" < address-policy-wg at ripe.net >,
> "policy-announce at ripe.net" < policy-announce at ripe.net >
> Message-ID: < 11E136AE-2A9A-4798-9F2E-D57CF49672D8 at ripe.net >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> [Apologies for duplicate emails]
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-10, "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis", has been implemented.
> 
> The full policy proposal can be found at:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 [Open URL]
> 
> The updated RIPE Document 589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", can be found at:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 [Open URL]
> 
> You can request this extension by submitting the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form through the LIR Portal, or by emailing it to  hostmaster at ripe.net
> 
> If you have any questions, please contact  ncc at ripe.net
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kjell Leknes
> Registration Services
> RIPE NCC
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130611/43c54b96/attachment-0001.html
> 
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 5
> ************************************************

ACCE$$


Отправлено из мобильной Почты Mail