[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Mon Jun 14 11:34:03 CEST 2004
My opinions.. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Laura Cobley wrote: > Below is an excerpt from the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment > Policy: > > 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "d)" > > "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organisation must [...] have a plan for making at least 200 /48 > assignments to other organisations within two years." > > > 1. According to this criterion, LIRs who are operators planning to only > make /64 assignments appear not to qualify. Was this the community's > intention? The recommended policy is to make /48 assignments, so encouragement in this policy does not hurt. So, I'd maybe interpret this as "if you plan to make so many /64 assignments that 200 /48's wouldn't be enough, you may get an allocation". Means that guide LIRs towards Doing the Right Thing wrt. assignments are not a bad idea. > 2. There are a number of interpretations of requirement "d)": > > - NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS > > -- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least 200 separate /48 > assignments. Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments > and the size of each must be a /48. > > -- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least the equivalent of > 200 /48 assignments. Possible scenario: LIR can assign one > /41 and seventy-two /48s. > > Which interpretation was intended regarding the number of > assignments? IMHO, the former. The latter would be a loophole, and there shouldn't be a need for making many allocations larger than /48 in any case (and if they are made, there will have to be permission from RIPE NCC in any case, as of today) > - RECIPIENT OF ASSIGNMENTS > > -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to > 200 separate organisations (regardless of which > organisation). Possible scenario: LIR can make 1 assignment > to its own organisation and 199 assignments to 199 > "different" organisations. No, your own allocations are not counted. > -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to > 200 separate organisations outside of its own infrastructure. > Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments to 200 > "different" organisations. Assignments to its own > organisation will not be counted. This was what was meant, I think. > -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200 > separate networks (regardless of which organisation these > networks belong to). Possible scenario: LIR makes 200 > assignments to 200 networks. 100 can be for its own > infrastructure and 100 can be for another single > organisation. > > -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200 > separate networks outside of its own infrastructure. Possible > scenario: LIR makes 200 assignments to 200 networks "outside > of its own infrastructure". These two are just variants of the above assuming that "NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS" (above) does not need to be at least 200. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]