[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stefan Camilleri
stefan.camilleri at maltanet.net
Fri Jun 16 14:30:30 CEST 2006
> -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com > Sent: Il-Ġimgħa, 16 ta' Ġunju 2006 12:14 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] > 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy) > > > Oh I could do that. But then... What the hell are policies > for anyway! > > That's the scope of this thread really. > > Policies are there to guide RIPE members and RIPE NCC > employees. If you read RIPE-267 it says: > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 > assignments to other organisations within > two years. > > It doesn't say that you follow the plan exactly or the > addresses will be taken away. It does not say that you > forever give up your rights to change your plans. It does not > say that the plan must be accomplished without setting up new > business units. It does not require you to spend a specific > amount of money implementing your plan. It does not tell you > that you must have assigned 100 of those /48s by the end of > the next year. > > This policy seems to have triggered something in our human > psychology because many people in many countries have reacted > to this wording like you have. For some reason, almost > everyone who reads this policy believes that it contains > requirements which are not written there. > > For that reason alone, it should be changed. Criteria a), b), > and c) really are good enough reason to give an IPv6 /32 to an LIR. > > But, we are talking about 2006-2 which also changes the text > of b) and c): > > a) be an LIR > b) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organisations > or to its own/related departments/entities/sites to > which it will assign /48s by advertising that > connectivity through a single aggregated address allocation > > and > > c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 > assignments within two years > > It seems like a reasonable change to me. Excellent... That's the bottom line. So let's change it. What's the use of putting a plan together (I have one ready) whilst knowing full well at the back of one's mind that A) I will be changing these plans B) I have no way to know how I will accomplish this plan C) I have no clue of the amount of money if any I can get approved to allocate towards plan and D) Many of my 'potential' /48 clients are completely as yet unconvinced on the need for v6 That is why I support the text as revised. I could even dare suggest an extra line wherein beneficiaries of /32 should return allocations if unutilised within a term of X years. But that's a different story :) > --Michael Dillon >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]