Inline... my views. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Laura Cobley wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We have received many comments that the text of the current IPv6 Allocation and Assignment Policy document can be difficult to read and understand. Some of these difficulties were presented at RIPE 48 by Leo Vegoda:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-ipv6-polic...
During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to propose any policy changes.
In order to assist with rewriting the IPv6 Policy document, we would like to have some input from the community on the issues needing clarification. We will send each issue for discussion in a separate mail.
This is the first of these mails.
Below is an excerpt from the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy:
5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "d)"
"To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must [...] have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years."
1. According to this criterion, LIRs who are operators planning to only make /64 assignments appear not to qualify. Was this the community's intention?
If focus on *only*, "Yes". Otherwise i would say "No".
2. There are a number of interpretations of requirement "d)":
- NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least 200 separate /48 assignments. Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments and the size of each must be a /48.
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least the equivalent of 200 /48 assignments. Possible scenario: LIR can assign one /41 and seventy-two /48s.
I would go with this one. Focus on address space being "handed out", not on the # of different customers.
Which interpretation was intended regarding the number of assignments?
- RECIPIENT OF ASSIGNMENTS
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to 200 separate organisations (regardless of which organisation). Possible scenario: LIR can make 1 assignment to its own organisation and 199 assignments to 199 "different" organisations.
This should be valid.
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to 200 separate organisations outside of its own infrastructure. Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments to 200 "different" organisations. Assignments to its own organisation will not be counted.
Own assignments should count. At a latter point in time projects/other might shift administrative control...
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200 separate networks (regardless of which organisation these networks belong to). Possible scenario: LIR makes 200 assignments to 200 networks. 100 can be for its own infrastructure and 100 can be for another single organisation.
Should be valid. Some LIRs in fact manage a lot of projects, lot of networks, etc...
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200 separate networks outside of its own infrastructure. Possible scenario: LIR makes 200 assignments to 200 networks "outside of its own infrastructure".
Too much conservative -- also a good way to stop/slow down IPv6. :-(
Which interpretation was intended regarding the recipient of assignments?
We look forward to receiving the community's input on this.
Best Regards,
Laura Cobley Registration Services RIPE NCC
Regards, ./Carlos -------------- IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (135072/470), naming (millions) and... people!"