Maybe you are right, but it doesn't prove that is IS good in IPv6 world too. I can't understand, why I should think about such private matters (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE's policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the public network called the Internet, then it's not the scope of our thinking! From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freedman@uk.clara.net] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:18 PM To: Potapov Vladislav; nick@inex.ie; frederic@placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Vladislav, this is a function that the RIPE NCC have always provided, if this relationship is truely private then I would suggest consulting RFC1918 or RFC4193. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net on behalf of poty@iiat.ru Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:12 To: nick@inex.ie; frederic@placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote:
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.
from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means