2016-04 Review Phase Extended (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the extended Review Phase. The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. You can find the full proposal and the RIPE NCC impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week extended Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 27 December 2017. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
On 27 November 2017 at 12:26, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the extended Review Phase.
At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus.
Hi, I support the policy goals and the amendments to the current policy The only open question I see is if the examples included in the wording are broad enough in terms of scope to enable a clear decision as to whether a "usage" is (or is not) a sub-assignment? For me it's clear but I'm a native bad english speaker and would appreciate confirmation from non-native speakers just to make sure Thx J <https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum>
Hi James, Hi all, James Blessing wrote at 27.11.2017 13:32:
The only open question I see is if the examples included in the wording are broad enough in terms of scope to enable a clear decision as to whether a "usage" is (or is not) a sub-assignment? For me it's clear but I'm a native bad english speaker and would appreciate confirmation from non-native speakers just to make sure
As being a bad non-native english speaker it is clear to me that the usage of an PI IPv6 address through one of your endusers on your own infrastructe is clearly not a sub-assigment. As Max stated out even RIPE NCC had to use addresses from a PI Assignment on serveral RIPE-Meetings to supply IPv6 addresses to the attendees of the meetings. So it is pretty clear to me that i, as a attendee, was using RIPE-NCC infrastructue and not asking RIPE NCC for an IPv6 sub-assignment of their PI-Space. Best Regards. Matthias Kluth Senior Network Consultant HeLi NET Telekommunikation GmbH & Co. KG Hafenstr. 80-82 D-59067 Hamm Tel.: +49 (0)2381 / 874-4502 Fax: +49 (0)2381 / 874-4551 Mobil: +49 (0)173 / 5411102 Email: mk@helinet.de Web: http://www.helinet.de -- HeLi NET Telekommunikation GmbH & Co. KG Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamm - Amtsgericht Hamm HRA 1881 Komplementaerin: HeLi NET Verwaltung GmbH Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamm - Amtsgericht Hamm HRB 2781 Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dipl.-Kfm. Ralf Schuette
participants (3)
-
James Blessing -
Marco Schmidt -
Matthias Kluth