[address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed May 30 08:54:15 CEST 2007
Hi Jordi, On 29 May 2007, at 11:18pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] >> The new text has the following statement: >> >> "PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations: >> The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger >> assignment (shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented >> and justified." >> >> I am not sure what documentation and justification is required to >> qualify for a prefix shorter than a /48. What do I need to show the >> RIPE NCC before they would be able to assign my network a /47? > > I just tried to keep it simple. I expect the Staff will use the same > criteria they use today for providing, for example, a /31 instead > of /32. It would be helpful to put this in the policy text so that anyone considering a request will know whether they are likely to qualify or not. >> It would be helpful to people considering requesting a PI IPv6 prefix >> and the RIPE NCC if the policy gave a clear statement of what is >> required. > > Not sure if that's so easy, and I'm not really sure is really > needed. Do you > have any idea ? We could also apply that "idea", may be, to the > standard > IPv6 allocation policy. > > It will be good to understand if the staff is having problems > there, or it > is just enough the way they are doing and it may be applied then > here the > same. One of the three principles guiding the policy process is that "it is transparent. All discussions and results are documented and freely available to all."[1] If the criteria for a decision are too difficult to define in the policy text then there's something wrong somewhere. >> Also, the proposed text does not define a maximum size for an IPv6 PI >> assignment. When this is combined with a lack of definition for the >> qualification requirements it seems that a /32 of IPv6 PI could be >> assigned. Is that intended? > > Not at all, it is not intended to assign a /32. However, if the > case justify > it, we aren't closing the door. I really think it is difficult to > find a > case that could justify that, in fact probably is very difficult to > justify > cases that justify something shorter than /44, but you never know > how big > can be a data center or content provider, for example. I think it's difficult to define a case justifying it, too. But that doesn't mean that unreasonable requests won't be made. And if you don't have a clearly defined set of criteria you make things needlessly difficult for both the requesters and the registry. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison [1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]