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

[Elvis Velea]

Hi Emilio,

no worries, we'll need the picture just before officially sending the 
proposal to the list.

What I would like to see in that picture is:
- remove references to ISPs; LIRs are no longer only ISPs, any 
organisation can be an LIR and make sub-allocations

- keep the idea that from the RIR there are two options for an other 
organisation to receive the allocation:
1. via the LIR (left) or
2. via the Sponsoring LIR (right)
I'd like it to look just like via the LIR but with a dotted line to show 
that the allocation is actually made directly to the end-user. Ideally, 
there would be two lines, one dotted showing the link to the Sponsoring 
LIR and a direct line between the RIPE NCC and the EU. Not sure what the 
best representation would be here?
The one via the LIR (left) is ok now, only thing needed to be removed is 
the ISP word.
The one via the Sponsoring LIR (right) (dotted line) will be the one on 
the right.

- from the LIR (left) or the EU (right) I want the picture to show that 
there can be an unlimited number of delegations (sub-allocations), the 
last one being the end-site.

cheers,
elvis

On 8/23/13 10:45 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> Hi Elvis,
>    these are some unexpected busy times and NCC but rest assured that I'm
> working on this too. At the moment I'm trying to fix the image on page 6
> of the proposal. I read your comments and I guess you want to edit it
> quite a bit.
>
> I'll be back to you as soon as I can
>
> Cheers
> Emilio
>
> On 8/22/13 10:04 PM, Elvis Velea wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Apwg-ipv6-papi mailing list
>> Apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/apwg-ipv6-papi
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Apwg-ipv6-papi mailing list
> Apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/apwg-ipv6-papi
>