It's now almost at the point where I start to wonder if Jordi have been arranging for people to send in their support. On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Marc van Selm wrote:

On Wednesday 27 September 2006 12:01, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

...

Hi all,

Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy proposal. <snip>

-- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | roger@jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------

Hi Roger, Not sure if you mean if I convinced in private to some people. If that was your idea, believe me, it has not been the case, I really prefer very open debate. I hate doing so, and actually if anyone contacted me in private, I always suggested to do it in the list (and there was one specific case only, who already went to the list). Even if it will not be "illegal" to try to convince people, as said, I'm not a fan at all of that, and actually seems to me more productive to raise all the pros and cons in the list. That's why we have a list, right ? And by the way, it has been my fault in the last months not having achieved more discussion on this, because I was too busy, so hopefully this is going to help before the end of the discussion period :-). Regards, Jordi

De: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:16:04 +0200 (CEST) Para: Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm@nc3a.nato.int> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)

It's now almost at the point where I start to wonder if Jordi have been arranging for people to send in their support.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Marc van Selm wrote:

...

On Wednesday 27 September 2006 12:01, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

...

Hi all,

Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy proposal. <snip>

--

------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | roger@jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------

********************************************** 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.

I believe the new proposal is much fairer to smaller ISPs, who currently are unable to justify assignments for IPv6. Currently we would not be able to assign 200 /48 in two years and therefore unable to receive IPv6 address space. However, until we are able to provide IPv6 connectivity, our customers won't request such IP addresses from us. And since our customers won't request them, we can't justify requesting from RIPE, who won't assign since we can't assign at lease 200 /48 in two years.... As shown this ends up in a deadlock situation and therefore IPv6 will only be available to larger ISPs. I know IPv6 is still quite a new "feature" and therefore still not widely used, but unless ISPs get access to IPv6 address space, it won't be more widely used. I'm definitely in favour of the new proposal. ______________________________________ Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards Lars Lystrup Christensen Network Engineer LLC11-RIPE

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Camilleri Sent: 24. oktober 2006 12:14 To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)

Hi,

I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not *there* are a big improvement on existing text particularly with the dropping of the requirement for 200 /48 assignments.

I fully support the new Proposal

Regards.

Stephen SC4079-RIPE

...

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)

Hi all,

Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy proposal.

As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to proceed.

Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments.

The stats don't include my own postings:

...

...

...

- there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it.

- 8 people supported it.

- 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy.

- 5 people made comments which I could not identify a clear support or objection.

So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ?

Regards, Jordi

********************************************** 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.