AW: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08

I support this proposal as is.

Where's the reason for treating LIR's different than end users in regards to 'validity of the assignment' and return of a resource? 

If routing reasons are the main criteria for assignment existing policies already define the return of the resource as soon as the reasons become invalid. 

Or did I miss something?


kind regards,

Marcus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering IP Services

Versatel West GmbH

Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29
D-44143 Dortmund

Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491
marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738
Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 


________________________________

	Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Stream Service
	Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009 02:45
	An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
	Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
	
	

	Because of point 2 I don't support this proposal, if/when this point is removed I support this proposal. 

	 

	Some people don't want that RIPE is saying anything about routing policy, so it should also not look for this for returning IPv6/IPv4 IP assignments if you ask me. 

	 

	From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Freedman
	Sent: maandag 8 juni 2009 22:05
	To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
	Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08

	 

	Can I just ask for clarification of the following:
	
	"the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment."
	and
	"The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months should the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment no longer be met."
	
	1. does this mean that the following question from RIPE-468 is no longer valid for routing?
	
	"% Is the End User requesting extra address space for routing and/or
	% administrative reasons? (Yes/No)"
	
	
	2. Will this include the space not being routed at all? or does this require that the space be routed?
	
	
	Regards,
	
	Dave.
	
	------------------------------------------------
	David Freedman
	Group Network Engineering
	Claranet Limited
	http://www.clara.net
	
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Frederic
	Sent: Mon 6/8/2009 20:07
	To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
	Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
	
	hi,
	
	we support this proposal.
	
	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html
	
	
	
	bst regards.
	Frederic