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

[Elvis Velea]

Hi everyone,

the latest version is now updated, all that still needs to be done is to 
insert the latest picture from Emilio.

Will do that a bit later :-)

let me know what you think. I believe we are ready now to officially 
send the document to the RIPE NCC and the working group and start the 
discussion.

looking forward to your answers.

cheers,
elvis (tired - working on the plane and via a vpn from China for the 
past 20 hours to get this done)

On 8/23/13 4:26 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Thanks Elvis!
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Sander Steffann
>
> Op 22 aug. 2013 om 22:04 heeft Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> 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
>>>>