On 22 May 2007, at 8:50pm, Sascha Lenz wrote: [...]
Simple IPv6 PI Assignment policy:
[...]
- A recurring fee of 100EUR/y is charged from the RIPE NCC directely or via the handling LIR
As you noted elsewhere, fee schedule decisions belong to the membership. [...]
- The assignment is at least a /48 from a dedicated supernet-block which clearly identifies it as Provider Independent Prefix - A shorter prefix may be assigned if the end-site provides a network plan and possible contracts with suppliers that hint that a /48 prefix might not contain enough subnets for the planned lifetime of the assignment.
Hint? If prefixes shorter than /48 should not be the default assignment then I think we need more than a "slight or indirect indication or suggestion" that more than a /48 is required. If I just need to hint that I might possibly need more than a /48 over the next 15 years to receive a /44, /40 or /32 then the policy is utterly broken. If you want a free-for-all then propose a policy that clearly and unambiguously states that there is a free for all. If you want restrictions then propose a policy that clearly and unambiguously states what the qualifying criteria are. Vague language makes things more difficult for requesters because they don't know if they qualify or not and so may be dissuaded from requesting something they need. It also makes things very awkward for the RIPE NCC staff. Without a clear set of criteria they aren't in a position to justify refusing an (apparently) unreasonable request. This is likely to lead to refusing all requests or approving all requests - but probably the latter. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison