Hello WG,

I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6 Deployment in large organizations.

But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:

"If an organization needs more address space, it must provide documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“

Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation" paragraph 2 (b)?

Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize, with respect to the allocation size?

Regards,

Carsten

Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>:

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements
with the initial allocation requirements.

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum