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

[<matthew.ford@localhost]

People sending comments to this list with the clear intention of supporting the adoption of new policy should take their responsibilities as stewards of the Internet's resources a little more seriously in my opinion.

The proposed policy includes the following wording:

"To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must: ...

c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 assignments within two years"

Define 'reasonable'.

Folks need to stop focussing on getting rid of the 200 /48 assignments rule and start focussing on developing good, useful policy for the region.

In the absence of a better alternative (which 2006-02 is emphatically not), then the current policy must suffice.

Regards,
Mat


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin@localhost] On Behalf Of Lars Lystrup Christensen
> Sent: 25 October 2006 08:54
> Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
> Policy (2006-02)
> 
> 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
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >