This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Dec 4 16:37:42 CET 2008
Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > That is exactly the problem we are trying to solve. To do that it > appears we need #1, 2 and 3 sorted out as you rightly noted. Ok, good, so let's say for the sake of argument that 2006-01 is passed as policy and PI IPv6 space becomes available, and that the RIPE NCC applies for and is assigned a /48 for internal infrastructural needs - i.e. replacing the PA /48 currently assigned for the purpose by SARA. If the meetings organisation people within the RIPE NCC then apply for a separate /48 PI for use for RIPE meetings, will the registration services department then be in a position to assign a separate /48 PI block for meetings under existing assignment guidelines? More generally, if Organisation X already holds IPv6 space, whether PA or PI, and where: 1. they are not using the entire address block for their infrastructural needs, 2. they intend to organise an event which requires a separate IPv6 address block for routing purposes, 3. the total number of /64s required for both their normal infrastructural needs and their event requirements does not exceed their existing ipv6 assignment 4. that assignment is either for a once-off or a periodically recurring meeting then in this situation, would the RIPE NCC registration department be happy to assign an ipv6 address block for that purpose? My take on this is probably not. But it would be helpful to get a formal opinion from this from the RIPE NCC. two notes: - I've excluded ipv4 and asns from this position, because I think that they can probably be assigned under existing guidelines: ASNs because of the multihoming requirements if the organisation does not already hold an ASN, and IPv4 because end-users are assigned on the basis of numerical requirement for day-to-day needs, and if they organise a temporary event, then that numerical requirement will be exceeded. - I can see no good reason that RIPE should receive special treatment in terms of any address assignment requirements and lots of reasons that they shouldn't. If there is a requirement for RIPE to receive a /48 pi block for meetings, then that option should be considered for all end-users in the RIPE service region. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]