[address-policy-wg] WG: Re: 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi all,
I support this proposal, too,
Thanks John

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards

Alexander Brinkmann
Tel.: +49 7132 949665
Fax: +49 7132 9479665
EMail: alexander.brinkmann at kaufland.com
KI 967850 IT International / IT Governance / Netzwerk Design und
IT-Sicherheit
Office:
Haller Straße 60
74189 Weinsberg

http://www.kaufland.de
http://www.spannende-it.de




Kaufland Informationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG
Postfach 12 53 - 74149 Neckarsulm
Kommanditgesellschaft
Sitz: Neckarsulm
Registergericht: Stuttgart HRA 104163


----- Weitergeleitet von Alexander Brinkmann/IS/KI/KAUFLAND am 26.05.2015
11:36 -----

Von:	Carlos Gómez Muñoz <carlosf.gomez at seap.minhap.es>
An:	John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Kopie:	mschmidt at ripe.net
Datum:	26.05.2015 11:03
Betreff:	Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment
            Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Gesendet von:	"address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net>



I support the proposal with the addition suggested by John.

Best regards,

Carlos Gómez

es.seap Spanish government LIR

El 22/05/2015 a las 11:45, John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch escribió:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> On Tue Apr 28 Marco Schmidt wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>> A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and
Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion.
>>
>> The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6
allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional
aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the
organisation's infrastructure.
>>
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>>
>> 		 https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03
>>
>
> I supported this proposal is a previous post and I still do.  However as
Marco said in his original message above "additional aspects beyond only
the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's
infrastructure" would be considered by the RIPE-NCC.  I want to make a
suggestion for such "additional aspects".   It might make sense that some
inclusive evaluation criteria are listed in the policy.  This would make
the evaluation task of the RIPE-NCC easier and would also simplify
allocation requests from LIRs.
>
> I suggest that the following text replaces the existing text in the
policy in section 5.1.2 (Initial allocation size)
>
> -------------------- begin ------------------------------------------
> "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to
receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no
additional documentation is necessary.
>
> Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by
submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the
allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the
organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical
structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for
security and the planned longevity of allocation."
> -------------------- end --------------------------------------------
>
>
> Here are some remarks concerning the "additional
aspects" (inclusive/positive criteria in the suggested text):
>
> number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> This is like the status quo. It allows the RIPE-NCC to consider the
number of existing and future (note the removal of the word "existing" in
the suggested policy text) users and the organisation's infrastructure when
evaluating address plans.   It seems logical that these criteria are
included in the evaluation of requests as there is a relationship between
the number users and infrastructure and the needed addresses.  The more
users and the bigger the infrastructure, the more address are needed.
>
> hierarchical and geographic structuring
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider requirements of (national or
multi-national) commercial organisations, governments and military
organisations like the UK-MOD concerning the reflection of hierarchy and
geographical coverage in the address plan. Even autonomous
(sub)organisations are catered for by the 'hierarchy' aspects.
>
> the segmentation of infrastructure for security
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider address plans which cater for the
separation of infrastructures for security reasons which might include data
protection, network and system protection and business continuity assurance
for disaster recovery.
>
> planned longevity of allocation
> ----------------------------------------
> Allows the RIPE-NCC to take future planning of organisations into account
when they reserve enough address space for many years in an effort to avoid
renumbering and (at the end of the day) to avoid undue de-aggregation.  I
do not propose that a specific number of years is mentioned as the
interpretation of longevity for one organisation will differ from that of
another organisation.  As RIPE-NCC's Andrea Cima pointed out at RIPE70,
some LIRs plan in terms of 20 years, others in terms of 10 years etc.
>
>
> Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to
consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the
mailing-list.   Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration
and support.   Your feedback is important.  The success of IPv6 depends on
both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space.
>
> And thank you very much for reading this far!
>
> Best Regards,
> John
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150526/ce94c22e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 12117024.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 20176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150526/ce94c22e/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 12239758.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1090 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150526/ce94c22e/attachment-0001.gif>