Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size"
Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size". In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include: - Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation - Planned longevity of the allocation - Segmentation of infrastructure for security You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter... The archived policy proposal can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services
Dear Matt, many thanks for the policy proposal implementation and for your e-mail. I have one or two questions regarding the example in the information about the expanded evaluation criteria (link below). I realise that you were just providing an example and all examples have their limitations. I hope however that your answer might help me and possibly others to better understand the new policy. The questions are: a) if you have 8 cities each requiring a /48 then you need a /45 and not a /44 as in your example. Is the extra bit already included in the /44? This is not clear because you imply it but do not state it explicitly. The same applies to the Region and Country structuring. Can you clarify? b) Why stop at 3 levels of hierarchy? For example a city may be divided into suburban regions. Maybe there are also 8 suburban regions per city. If this would be the case would it be possible to have one more extra bit - finally resulting in a /35 instead of a /36 as in your example? And countries may be structured into continental regions - let's assume we have 8 of these too. Here we need one extra bit too, finally resulting in a /34. Generally the question is: is there some limit on the number of levels of hierarchy for which an "extra bit" may be used? Many thanks and kind regards, John -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matt Parker Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 12:20 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size". In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include: - Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation - Planned longevity of the allocation - Segmentation of infrastructure for security You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter... The archived policy proposal can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services
Dear John, Thank you for you email. You are perfectly correct; eight cities requiring a /48 results in a /45, and not a /44 as in our example. This was an oversight and the example on the website has been updated to reflect the correct assignment sizes. The extra bit is not included in the example since it is demonstrating how the request is evaluated in terms of amount of users and the extent of infrastructure. Taking the hierarchical and geographical structure of the organisation into consideration would allow the RIPE NCC to consider an extra bit at each level, however the need must be justified. To consider our example, the organisation may be expanding into new cities, thereby justifying one extra bit at the city level. They may also be expanding into new regions, which would justify one extra bit at the regional level. However, unless they have specific documented plans to expand into new countries, they would not justify an extra bit at country level. I can confirm that there is no limit to the number of levels of hierarchy permitted in an organisation's addressing plan. With documentation which reasonably justifies the request, an extra bit can be considered for each level. It is important to remember that the total allocation size should be calculated starting from the lowest network level working up through the network hierarchy. If you have any further questions please let us know. Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services On 09/10/15 09:03, John.Collins@BIT.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Matt,
many thanks for the policy proposal implementation and for your e-mail.
I have one or two questions regarding the example in the information about the expanded evaluation criteria (link below). I realise that you were just providing an example and all examples have their limitations. I hope however that your answer might help me and possibly others to better understand the new policy. The questions are:
a) if you have 8 cities each requiring a /48 then you need a /45 and not a /44 as in your example. Is the extra bit already included in the /44? This is not clear because you imply it but do not state it explicitly. The same applies to the Region and Country structuring. Can you clarify?
b) Why stop at 3 levels of hierarchy? For example a city may be divided into suburban regions. Maybe there are also 8 suburban regions per city. If this would be the case would it be possible to have one more extra bit - finally resulting in a /35 instead of a /36 as in your example? And countries may be structured into continental regions - let's assume we have 8 of these too. Here we need one extra bit too, finally resulting in a /34. Generally the question is: is there some limit on the number of levels of hierarchy for which an "extra bit" may be used?
Many thanks and kind regards, John
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matt Parker Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 12:20 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size"
Dear colleagues,
We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size".
In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include:
- Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation - Planned longevity of the allocation - Segmentation of infrastructure for security
You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criter...
The archived policy proposal can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03
The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655
Kind regards,
Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services
Hi Matt, many thanks for the clarification. Kind regards, John -----Original Message----- From: Matt Parker [mailto:matt.parker@ripe.net] Sent: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015 12:52 To: Collins John BIT <John.Collins@BIT.admin.ch>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" Dear John, Thank you for you email. You are perfectly correct; eight cities requiring a /48 results in a /45, and not a /44 as in our example. This was an oversight and the example on the website has been updated to reflect the correct assignment sizes. The extra bit is not included in the example since it is demonstrating how the request is evaluated in terms of amount of users and the extent of infrastructure. Taking the hierarchical and geographical structure of the organisation into consideration would allow the RIPE NCC to consider an extra bit at each level, however the need must be justified. To consider our example, the organisation may be expanding into new cities, thereby justifying one extra bit at the city level. They may also be expanding into new regions, which would justify one extra bit at the regional level. However, unless they have specific documented plans to expand into new countries, they would not justify an extra bit at country level. I can confirm that there is no limit to the number of levels of hierarchy permitted in an organisation's addressing plan. With documentation which reasonably justifies the request, an extra bit can be considered for each level. It is important to remember that the total allocation size should be calculated starting from the lowest network level working up through the network hierarchy. If you have any further questions please let us know. Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services On 09/10/15 09:03, John.Collins@BIT.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Matt,
many thanks for the policy proposal implementation and for your e-mail.
I have one or two questions regarding the example in the information about the expanded evaluation criteria (link below). I realise that you were just providing an example and all examples have their limitations. I hope however that your answer might help me and possibly others to better understand the new policy. The questions are:
a) if you have 8 cities each requiring a /48 then you need a /45 and not a /44 as in your example. Is the extra bit already included in the /44? This is not clear because you imply it but do not state it explicitly. The same applies to the Region and Country structuring. Can you clarify?
b) Why stop at 3 levels of hierarchy? For example a city may be divided into suburban regions. Maybe there are also 8 suburban regions per city. If this would be the case would it be possible to have one more extra bit - finally resulting in a /35 instead of a /36 as in your example? And countries may be structured into continental regions - let's assume we have 8 of these too. Here we need one extra bit too, finally resulting in a /34. Generally the question is: is there some limit on the number of levels of hierarchy for which an "extra bit" may be used?
Many thanks and kind regards, John
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matt Parker Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 12:20 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size"
Dear colleagues,
We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size".
In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include:
- Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation - Planned longevity of the allocation - Segmentation of infrastructure for security
You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment- criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation
The archived policy proposal can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03
The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655
Kind regards,
Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services
participants (2)
-
John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch -
Matt Parker