Re: [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)

[Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm@localhost]

Jordi,

I support PI for IPv6 but I personally do not like the section:

"Expiry for Assignments:
Assignment blocks made under this proposal to address Multihoming issues must 
be returned to the RIPE NCC after a maximum period of three years. The three 
year period will run from the date that an alternative technically valid and 
deployable solution becomes available and is accepted by the Internet 
community. Any organisations that want to avoid renumbering would, at this 
time, be able to opt to become an LIR, if they qualify, and be allocated the 
same prefix."

I'd recommend copying the accepted ARIN PI policy verbatim. One could 
discuss /32 or /48 but I would prefer a global policy over a regional policy.

I won't be at the next RIPE meeting (have other commitments) but as one of the 
authors of NATO's IPv6 adoption plan I do not like the Expiry section 
although I understand that its there as a compromise. (We recommend in our 
plan for NATO to adopt the LIR route instead). So this is my vote: I support 
PI for IPv6 but I do not support this proposal. I recommend to follow ARIN 
which has beaten us to it...

Best regards, Marc van Selm

On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry confused stats. Ignore the previous email ...
>
> As the discussion period for this proposal
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html) is almost over,
> I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to
> proceed.
>
> Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !)
> last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended,
> I don't recall having seen new comments.
>
> The stats don't include my own postings:
> >>> - there were 9 posts from 8 individuals about it.
> >>>
> >>> - 5 people supported it. 1 of these made some comments though, that he
> >>> prefers a longer prefix than a /32 clearly in his mail.
> >>>
> >>> - 1 person stated he supports "PI" but he is not supporting this
> >>> proposal.
> >>>
> >>> - 2 people said "No".
>
> So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in
> favor or opposition to the proposal ?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> http://www.ipv6day.org
>
> 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.

-- 

                -- This mail is personal --
All statements in this mail are made from my own personal
perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's
opinions or policies.