[address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)

I support the proposal, based on the same reasons outlined by Silvia, and also the link for the "automatic synchronisation"

Best regards
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 1:14 PM
To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)

I support this proposal - and also the "automatic synchronisation" wording below.

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: 24 November 2016 21:23
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)

Hi Carsten,

After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I guess you’re right.

The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.

I think it can be reworded as:

“If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (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 the allocation). The allocation made will be based on those requirements.”

If we want to get the subsequent allocation “automatically synchronized” with the initial one, we should omit the text in “()”. I think is the right way to do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the subsequent allocation.

Saludos,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39
Para: <bruecknerc at gmail.com>
CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)

    Hi Carsten,

    Thanks for your support.

    Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres some clarification ?

    Regards,
    Jordi


    El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner <bruecknerc at gmail.com> escribió:



    Hello WG,

    I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations.

    But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:
    "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“

    Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation" paragraph 2 (b)?
    Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?

    Regards,
    Carsten





    Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>:

    Dear colleagues,

    A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
    is now available for discussion.

    The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements
    with the initial allocation requirements.

    You can find the full proposal at:

        https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05

    We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
    <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.

    Regards,

    Marco Schmidt
    Policy Development Officer
    RIPE NCC

    Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum











    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    http://www.consulintel.es
    The IPv6 Company

    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.


    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    http://www.consulintel.es
    The IPv6 Company

    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.




Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.

Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4882 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161129/a0e5bc14/attachment.p7s>