[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 ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Wed Jun 27 00:49:54 CEST 2007
Leo Vegoda wrote: [..] > However the IPv6 allocation policy is revised, it needs to work well > with a PI assignment policy. If the only criterion for receiving a /32 > IPv6 allocation is that you become a RIPE NCC member then you create a > situation where networks wanting PI space must demonstrate a need for > anything more than a /48 but anyone willing to pay €3300 can get > thousands of times as much space without needing to show any need. > > One of the goals for IPv6 address space management is: > > 3.6. Fairness Which is why a policy should *always* have a "Justify the address space" clause in there when the requester wants >/48*. That is the real thing that a RIR has to do: verify (as far as possible blabla) that the request really is valid and that the address space will be used. Greets, Jeroen * = with >/48 I mean a /47, /46... /40 etc, the more/less smaller/larger stuff is confusing every time :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 311 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070626/55532afa/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]