[address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] IPv6 applications (was: Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal)

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Dominic Spratley wrote:
> You both made several points and I hope I can explain our thinking on them
> for you. We think these new forms represent a change in the way we provide
> services to LIRs so we've addressed this answer to the NCC Services WG list.
> We don't think they represent a change to the RIPE community's policy.

Actually, I tend to disagree, at least for some parts.  Which is why
I've put the APWG list back into the CC: (sorry for duplicates).

Some of the criticism voiced is that the NCC is asking questions and
enforcing rules that are more strict than what the policy demands - and
this is certainly relating to policy.

[..]
> You asked about the requirement for a network diagram to be supplied when
> requesting an IPv6 allocation. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the
> RIPE NCC has not yet made yet 250 IPv6 allocations. Our experience with IPv6
> networks is limited and we need network operators to show us how they intend
> to use IPv6 address space in their networks. 

I agree with the assessment that "more experience for the NCC is a good
thing".  

On the other hand, many startup IPv6 deployments are extremely trivial 
("one access server with 1000 DSL circuits, serving /48s to DSL end 
users" would certainly qualify for the policy requirements).  

So I don't think it's appropriate to enforce this "you send us an 
interesting picture, otherwise you won't get an IPv6 allocation"
approach.  Make it optional.

> Secondly, the current IPv6
> policy does not allow stockpiling of IPv6 address space. One way of
> distinguishing a genuine request from one that is intended for stockpiling
> reasons is to request a diagram showing how the address space will be used.
> It doesn't have to be a a fancy diagram. It's also fine to fax a hand-drawn
> diagram instead of sending one by e-mail. When we have more experience with
> IPv6 I expect we will make the diagram optional.

This is "conservationism striking again", and this is BAD.

The idea behind the current policy is "make IPv6 address blocks available
to anybody who is asking for them" (and can reasonably claim 200 future
IPv6 customers).  For that, you don't *need* a fancy network, so why
do you have to demonstrate it at all?

What are you worrying about?  Address wastage is really not a problem
right now.  Obstacles on the way to IPv6 deployments are a problem, and 
we don't want the NCC to be an obstacle.

Now come and flame me :-)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  55575  (56535)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299