RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

[Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost]

I don't really disagree with any of this, but RIPE is a registry. I don't think an address allocation policy should have any requirements with regards to any global or internal routing table as it is out of scope.
It could however have recommendations or helpful hints like "if the prefix is advertised on the internet and not announced as a single aggregate, the prefix will most likely be filtered by many parties".

j


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost [
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: 26. februar 2007 13:14
To: Woeber@localhost
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

> Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to
> advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the
> deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.

I'd like to second Wilfred on this point.  Just because RIPE has allocated 
address space, this does not mean that the address space will be visible on 
the Internet at any particular stage.  RIPE NCC provides a general address 
space registry function, not just a public internet address registry function.

While there is an argument for using PI for private assignments, right now 
we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space yet.  But more 
importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate for a private 
entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where PI would be 
less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues.


Nick Hilliard
-- 
Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick@localhost