[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 20:04:45 CEST 2012
Hello Gert, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I cannot let this particular claim unanswered: > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:19:12PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < > > richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza < > turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR > level. > > > > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet > > > > registry. > > > > > > No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything > > > this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy > > > across all RIRs is desirable, though. > > > > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. > > > Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have > the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more > due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first > place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so". > This divergence is a problem, I think. > To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that > suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" > policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", > not everybody else had that), and so on. > > This is an argument or a counter argument? > > So please stop that sub-thread now. The claim that address allocation > rules must be the same in all RIRs is false, and everybody who can > google for the current IPv6 policies in the regions can convince > themselves of that. Thus it's not a relevant argument here and now, > and only wasting bandwidth. > > (Feel free to bring up a global policy proposal to make the IPv6 policies > identical across all regions, but that would have to be a *new* proposal, > and have to be discussed in a new context) > My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the creation of a common policy harder. Best, Géza > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120411/d10c0b73/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]