Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)

[Dennis Lundström dennis@localhost]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Lars. I guess It depends on the definition of an "end-site" The
whole idea with IPv6 is to push the addresses to the end users.
We would without a doubt see more "connected" household appliances in
the future. And for our part. 200 /48 is not totally unrealistic.

I would say It's way to early to say. It depends very much on how fast
the market will adapt IPv6, and how fast new appliances are available.
Personally I would say that even a qualified guess on an estimate is
really, really hard here, and we don't want to lie to our friends at
RIPE-NCC, don't we :-)

Cheers!

- --Dennis Lundström
   GippNET AB (AS34537)

Lars Lystrup Christensen wrote:
> I believe the new proposal is much fairer to smaller ISPs, who
> currently are unable to justify assignments for IPv6. Currently we
> would not be able to assign 200 /48 in two years and therefore
> unable to receive IPv6 address space. However, until we are able to
> provide IPv6 connectivity, our customers won't request such IP
> addresses from us. And since our customers won't request them, we
> can't justify requesting from RIPE, who won't assign since we can't
> assign at lease 200 /48 in two years....
>
> As shown this ends up in a deadlock situation and therefore IPv6
> will only be available to larger ISPs.
>
> I know IPv6 is still quite a new "feature" and therefore still not
> widely used, but unless ISPs get access to IPv6 address space, it
> won't be more widely used.
>
> I'm definitely in favour of the new proposal.
>
> ______________________________________
>
> Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
>
> Lars Lystrup Christensen Network Engineer LLC11-RIPE
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost
>> [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@localhost] On Behalf Of Stefan
>> Camilleri Sent: 24. oktober 2006 12:14 To:
>> jordi.palet@localhost address-policy-wg@localhost Subject:
>> RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
>> Policy (2006-02)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not
>> *there* are a big improvement on existing text particularly with
>> the dropping of the requirement for 200 /48 assignments.
>>
>> I fully support the new Proposal
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Stephen SC4079-RIPE
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>> address-policy-wg-admin@localhost
>>> [
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of JORDI
>>> PALET MARTINEZ Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02 To:
>>> address-policy-wg@localhost Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6
>>> Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> As the discussion period for this proposal
>>> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.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 39 posts from 14 different individuals about
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - 8 people supported it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the
>>>>>> current policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a
>>> clear support
>>>>>> or objection.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFPysnsqJZaeZjsn8RAljpAKC8mRyq+x+piuXli7BNzF40uYCrVwCfT4LI
uFK7kA3CozqLjc3nBmypEoE=
=gmlg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----