[Apwg-ipv6-papi] The Picture / Re: first draft?

[Elvis Velea]

Hi everyone,

I will download the document and work on it over the weekend/plane.

I am now busy getting ready for APNIC36, but I'll probably have enough 
time on the 12 hours flight to work on the next version.

In the next version I will try to:

- remove the assignments completely
- introduce the definition of sub-allocations
- re-write the minimum sub-allocation of a /48 per end-site
- keep the "more than /48 per end-site" rule (request needed)
- any sub-allocation larger than /32 to be approved by the RIPE NCC

cheers,
elvis

On 8/21/13 10:58 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think things are going in the right direction. I don't have time now to read through all the text now, but I'll try to find that time next week.
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Sander Steffann
>
> Op 21 aug. 2013 om 20:40 heeft Daniel Stolpe <stolpe at resilans.se> het volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Elvis Velea wrote:
>>
>>> any rationale against it?
>>>
>>> what about:
>>>
>>> - if this is accepted, the organisations that can receive a /32 (or
>>> larger) allocations via a Sponsoring LIR will no longer see an incentive
>>> to become an LIR
>>
>> This one will come up so we had better think about it. My personal view - or should I say "position" - is that we (as in RIPE) should not force organisations to become LIR:s. We (as in my company) have a lot of customers that are by now means ISP:s, but they need something bigger than a /48. They should not have to become an LIR if they find a sponsor.
>>
>> I guess RIPE will have to show more membership benefits than "you will be able to get IP addresses".
>>
>>>>> 5. Is it ok to request LIRs that make sub-allocations bigger than /32 to
>>>>> send a request to the RIPE NCC for approval?
>>>>
>>>> That is ok, but explain the reasons.
>>>
>>> Well, if an LIR makes a sub-allocation larger than a /32, then I think
>>> the RIPE NCC should be the one approving the request. If an organisation
>>> needs an allocation larger than a /32 (64K /48s), then I think that an
>>> evaluation should be made.
>>
>> I see your point. So, do we want to limit the freedom of the LIR:s or not?
>>
>>>>> 9. Is it ok to have a minimum allocation of a /32? For both LIRs and the
>>>>> customers that previously used to receive a PI assignment?
>>>>
>>>> No, if someone only needs a /48 they should be able to get it.
>>>
>>> ok, can you have a look at 5.1.2 in the policy proposal text and see if
>>> it makes sense?
>>>
>>> Minimum allocation is a /32 and the NCC can make /48s upon request.
>>
>> I think it looks OK. What do you say Sander?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________
>> Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
>> Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
>> Box 13 054                                  556741-1193
>> 103 02 Stockholm
>>