Hello Frederic,
we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min ipv6-PI block assignement. RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing.
yes we know.
but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask to LIR to garant routing.
so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing.
I fully agree that we need to encourage good routing practice. Fortunately we have a working group at RIPE devoted to this topic. Unfortunately, this is not a document belonging to the routing working group. I think that this is more than an academic distinction; there has long been a reluctance to have addressing requirements polluted by routing requirements, which change on different timelines and are subject to different pressures. In particular, it is unwise to try to base addressing requirements based on routing policy of the day, since this is unlikely to lead to the efficient use of address space. This is already a live consideration, as became evident during the last RIPE meeting. For that reason, I see the change that this proposal would bring about as being a useful cleanup. I think everyone agrees that we need to aggregate our announcements properly, and the routing-wg needs to review that (and re-review it) on its own timelines, without causing a conflict on the addressing policy when no conflict is necessary. If we do not make the change, then we will have to come back repeatedly every time the routing best practice changes - or risk a serious conflict in policy. Does this reassure you on this proposal? Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9