Hi Jordi, On 29 May 2007, at 11:18pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...]
The new text has the following statement:
"PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations: The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger assignment (shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented and justified."
I am not sure what documentation and justification is required to qualify for a prefix shorter than a /48. What do I need to show the RIPE NCC before they would be able to assign my network a /47?
I just tried to keep it simple. I expect the Staff will use the same criteria they use today for providing, for example, a /31 instead of /32.
It would be helpful to put this in the policy text so that anyone considering a request will know whether they are likely to qualify or not.
It would be helpful to people considering requesting a PI IPv6 prefix and the RIPE NCC if the policy gave a clear statement of what is required.
Not sure if that's so easy, and I'm not really sure is really needed. Do you have any idea ? We could also apply that "idea", may be, to the standard IPv6 allocation policy.
It will be good to understand if the staff is having problems there, or it is just enough the way they are doing and it may be applied then here the same.
One of the three principles guiding the policy process is that "it is transparent. All discussions and results are documented and freely available to all."[1] If the criteria for a decision are too difficult to define in the policy text then there's something wrong somewhere.
Also, the proposed text does not define a maximum size for an IPv6 PI assignment. When this is combined with a lack of definition for the qualification requirements it seems that a /32 of IPv6 PI could be assigned. Is that intended?
Not at all, it is not intended to assign a /32. However, if the case justify it, we aren't closing the door. I really think it is difficult to find a case that could justify that, in fact probably is very difficult to justify cases that justify something shorter than /44, but you never know how big can be a data center or content provider, for example.
I think it's difficult to define a case justifying it, too. But that doesn't mean that unreasonable requests won't be made. And if you don't have a clearly defined set of criteria you make things needlessly difficult for both the requesters and the registry. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison [1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html