Hi Leo, Thanks a lot for your inputs. See below, in-line. Regards, Jordi
De: leo vegoda <leo@ripe.net> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:55:31 +0200 Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Jordi,
On 27 Sep 2006, at 11:56GMT+02:00, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
[...]
So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ?
The current draft policy text in your proposal includes this paragraph:
"Expiry for Assignments: Assignment blocks made under this proposal to address Multihoming issues must be returned to the RIPE NCC after a maximum period of three years. The three year period will run from the date that an alternative technically valid and deployable solution becomes available and is accepted by the Internet community. Any organisations that want to avoid renumbering would, at this time, be able to opt to become an LIR, if they qualify, and be allocated the same prefix."
We have reviewed this text from the perspective of the organisation implementing the proposed reclaim process. There are a few areas where we are not sure what is intended. Firstly, in the summary section of your proposal you state that PI assignments are useful because they facilitate multihoming and ease the process of changing upstream provider. However, the expiry clause in your draft text starts with the phrase "Assignment blocks made under this proposal to address Multihoming issues". Does this mean that only those prefixes assigned to enable multihoming would be subject to reclaim by the RIPE NCC? Would assignments made to allow stable addressing when changing from one upstream to another not be subject to reclaim?
That was the idea in principle, to reclaim only those used for multihoming. However, I just realized that depending on the technical solution, it may be the case that this solution also solves the other scenarios, then we could reclaim all. To be honest, I'm not quite sure myself. We could probably tidy up the wording to keep that open, depending on the community decision at the time of the technical solution is "accepted".
Does the alternative technological solution need to solve the multihoming problem or the address stability problem, or both?
We don't know yet, it may be or may be not, that's the point ...
Also, can you help us understand what you mean by "is accepted by the Internet community"? Would you expect us to survey network operators for their opinions on the suitability of proposed solutions, or should we look to other methods of determining acceptance, like a RIPE document going through the RIPE PDP?
I think the ideal will be to follow the RIPE PDP for that, however, a survey may always be useful in order to help in the PDP process. One doesn't exclude the other, and the final text, if this proposal become accepted should probably define that. Remember that my point about the "temporarily" is that any policy can be changed or amended thru the PDP process, but seems to me more honest doing it upfront. Otherwise, why we have "temporary policies" ? It will not make any sense ...
Many thanks,
-- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.