[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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Jun 26 16:19:28 CEST 2007
Hi, On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 06:02:19PM -0400, Leo Vegoda wrote: > I'm not opposed to making IPv6 address space available to all the > networks that need it. I just think basing the policy for doing so on > a concept that is so slippery we can't really define it is fatally > flawed. If the net effect of your proposal would be that more than > 95% of members would qualify for a /32 allocation it is probably > simpler to just make the qualifying criterion being a RIPE NCC member. Well. Let's do a straw poll... "who is in favour of doing so?" I think it would make sense, to have "full-weight" LIRs that automatically get a /32-or-bigger allocation, and possibly "light-weight" RIPE "customers" (to get the contractual stuff that is desired) that get a /48-or-so PI. Just as a rough outline - details to be worked out. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- 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 ]