Hello,

Apologize, once again, however, I disagree.

My first question is: if we know the address allocation rules then is it possible to make a transition scenario wich keeps these rules?

The answer is yes, however, 6RD developers not made any effort to deal with these rules.

This should be they problems, not ours.

Second question: tha 6RD concept and its conflict with address allocation rules was hiden?

The answer is NO. János Mohácsi and me wrote a lenghty paper on this topic, submitted it to the Networks2008 conference, AND gave a copy of it to Rémi Deprés at the IETF meeting in Ireland in 2008 August.

Third question: if we would like to adopt ourself to 6RD, then should we change our rules this way?

The answer is: definitely not.

6RD is just a transition method which should not be use for long time. So if somebody think about exeptional looseng of rules, then I would suggest to think about allocating temporaly a block off address for 6RD, which MUST be returned within 3-5 years!!

Best,

Géza

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar <Ragnar.Anfinsen@altibox.no> wrote:
Late, but anyway.

We support this proposal.

MVH/Regards
Ragnar


> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> bounces@ripe.net] Pĺ vegne av Emilio Madaio
> Sendt: 21. oktober 2011 12:45
> Til: policy-announce@ripe.net
> Kopi: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the
> Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for
> discussion.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>     www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2011.
>
> Regards
>
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>