[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Jun 21 21:51:04 CEST 2007
Hi Jordi, On 21 Jun 2007, at 7:38am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > We are talking about two different things/cases. > > Both proposals may seem as related, but actually they are not. > > In fact, we can't relate both policy proposals also, because it is > not clear > that 2006-01 will go further (at least not with the actual text), as I > didn't got inputs to my last replies to previous inputs :-( So it is > difficult for me to keep going w/o community review. 2006-01 seems to have had a couple of dozen comments on it over the last month, actually. Are you referring to something else? > 2006-02 is intended for entities that have their own network with > multiple > sites. I think the intention makes sense but the phrasing of the policy text needs some work. It looks like you want an end site to qualify for a /32 IPv6 allocation if it needs to make *any* size of assignment to multiple internal sites. But the text doesn't actually define what one of these internal sites is. That creates a problem for anyone that wants one of these /32 allocations because they can't work out if they qualify for it or ought to try and get a /47 (or whatever) under the IPv6 PI policy. If the policy text is confusing it's going to create lots of extra work for the requesters and the RIPE NCC. > Those sites behave as end-sites to the "internal" ISP. This is for > example the case of Universities, or NATO (just to mention a clear > case) > that already have indicated in the list their need. I don't see > those as PI > cases, because they are by their own real ISPs, even if for the > same entity, > they have their own NOC, staff, etc. to manage the network. > > Instead 2006-01 is looking for PI cases, for example a data center. > > So I don't see the need to stop 2006-02, and what it is really > needed is to > get more input on 2006-01 ! I think the issue still remains: 2006-01 and 2006-02 need to work together closely. Presumably, a network that does not qualify for a / 47 should not qualify to receive a /32. Or should it? If it should not then how does this policy text ensure that? Because as far as I can tell there isn't a good definition of what one of these 'final' sites is, so anyone can claim that every /64 in their internal network is a site and get a /32 allocation. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]