This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk
Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk
Fri Jul 28 10:21:19 CEST 2006
Hi, Both of these proposals change the onus on an LIR from having "... a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years." to having "... a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organisations within two years." While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. Why 200 assignments? I can see that this is meant to prevent the numberspace becoming too fractured, so reducing the size of the routing table. However, I worry that it may have the side effect of imposing a hierarchy of ISPs within IPv6 that does not meet the requirements of smaller organisations. It seems there is little interest at present within the larger UK-based ISPs in providing IPv6, (with the exception of NTT-Verio), and this change won't affect that. Is there a better way to encourage the uptake of IPv6 without preventing exponential routing table growth? Ian ----- Forwarded by Ian Meikle/Nominet on 27/07/06 15:53 ----- Filiz Yilmaz <filiz at ripe.net> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 27/07/06 12:42 Please respond to filiz at ripe.net To policy-announce at ripe.net cc Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net>, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis at kurtis.pp.se>, Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues As you might remember, it was decided during RIPE 51 that the proposal described in 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" should be split into two parts. Accordingly, we have published two draft documents. You can find the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s.html defining allocation efficiency measurement unit as /56 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-hd-ratio.html changing the HD ratio value to 0.94 You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 August 2006. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]