Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal

[leo vegoda <]

On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:28 pm, Jørgen Hovland wrote:

[...]

> > The IPv6 end user assignment policies are pretty strict in that  
> > regard.
> >
> > There is no option to give "10 addresses" to a user - period.   
> > When becoming
> > LIR, you've signed that you'll follow the RIPE policies - and this is
> > established RIPE policy.
> >
> > So the whole question is moot.
You need to register a network prefix in an inet6num, rather than an  
address range. The closest you could get to 10 addresses is 16, which  
would be a /124, I think.

> I apologise if this is moot, but an answer would really be  
> appreciated.
> This becomes a problem with private users as it already is today.  
> We can't store data about every single private user into a public  
> database, and there might also be issues regarding the privacy act.  
> It breaks the "true spirit of IPv6";  "have enough addresses, and  
> no questions asked".
Would there be any real value in registering private users in Whois?  
How likely is it that the end user could provide assistance to  
whoever contacted them?

The registration for the network containing the IPv4 /32 on my home  
ADSL connection shows my ISP's contact information. If I took an IPv6  
service from them, I'd expect their contact information to be in  
that, too.

Regards,

--
leo vegoda
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC