RE: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made

David,

Whilst I agree with what you are saying in that the RIPE community has
identified issues, and that it is time to go into more detail to define a
workable allocation policy.  It would help if we had insight into what the 3
RIR thoughts are regarding these issues.   I know that a new policy document
will be published very shortly, and we should hopefully see what progress
has been made towards a workable allocation policy.

Personally I feel that it has taken far to long for a revised allocation
policy to materialize, since review of the current document started in
October 1999.  Almost two years on we don't have new draft-policy we can
even discuss let alone implement.

Anyway I'll stop going on about it and look forward to reading the new draft
:)

Regards,
Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kessens [
	    
	    
]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 4:46 PM
> To: BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP
> Cc: Stephen Burley; lir-wg@localhost ipv6-wg@localhost
> Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
> 
> 
> 
> Alain,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:45:24PM +0200, BIDRON Alain        
>    BRX/DAP wrote:
> > 
> > Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need 
> a new Draft
> > from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus
> > expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ?
> 
> I think that the problem description is quite clear. I think that it
> is also clear that a majority of the people would like to have a
> larger initial allocation.
> 
> However, it is not clear how big such an allocation should be, whether
> there should be a uniform size of the initial allocation, whether
> multi-national registries should be able to get more than one
> allocation etc.
> 
> Next, we will also need to take a look at the definition of 80%
> utilization, when people can come back to the regional registries for
> more address space and how much address space they will get when they
> come back and qualify for more address space. 
> 
> It's up to us as the RIPE community to identify these issues and to
> advise the RIPE NCC on how to fix the current policy. So far, we have
> done quite a good job in identifying the issues, it's now time to go
> in more detail in order to define a workable allocation policy.
> 
> David K.
> ---
>