Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Marco,
-----Original Message----- From: policy-announce [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 09 July 2015 13:20
The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
Thank you to you and colleagues for this. It can't have been the easiest analysis to undertake, not least given the multiple aspects to consider. It is clear however that a great deal of thought and consideration has gone into it. I need to take some time to fully consider all of the detail however my initial view of the interpretation and proposed implementation is very positive. Could I possibly seek some clarification on the following sentence from the second-to-last paragraph of Section A? 'Each assignment will be taken into account only once towards the total count of needed IPv6 space for an organisation and will not be multiplied by the times it is encapsulated in higher addressing plan levels.' Whilst I don't have a specific concern, and it may well be an insignificant statement, I thought it worthwhile double-checking what this means? Regards, Mathew
Hi Matthew, Thanks for your question - it's good to be able to clarify. If the proposal is accepted, we would base our evaluation of IPv6 requests on the number of actual end sites. An LIR could then document its need for addresses according to a range of criteria such as longevity, security requirements for an end site, or the need for aggregation in the hierarchy level of that end site and higher levels in the network topology. This is what is meant by encapsulation of the assignment. An end site cannot be repeated in another part of the addressing plan to qualify again under the same assessment criteria -- this would be a multiplication of the same assignment. So, for example, it would be possible to request extra address space for security and above hierarchy for the same end site, but it would not be possible to mention the same end site again in another part of the addressing plan to request a further reservation for security and hierarchy. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC On 09/07/15 18:18, Mathew Newton wrote:
Hi Marco,
-----Original Message----- From: policy-announce [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 09 July 2015 13:20 The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Thank you to you and colleagues for this. It can't have been the easiest analysis to undertake, not least given the multiple aspects to consider. It is clear however that a great deal of thought and consideration has gone into it.
I need to take some time to fully consider all of the detail however my initial view of the interpretation and proposed implementation is very positive.
Could I possibly seek some clarification on the following sentence from the second-to-last paragraph of Section A?
'Each assignment will be taken into account only once towards the total count of needed IPv6 space for an organisation and will not be multiplied by the times it is encapsulated in higher addressing plan levels.'
Whilst I don't have a specific concern, and it may well be an insignificant statement, I thought it worthwhile double-checking what this means?
Regards,
Mathew
Hi, I support this proposal. The change allows large organizations with complex network infrastructures or special purposes the deployment of ipv6 based on a complete, useful structured and sustainable ipv6 address plan. Regards, Carsten -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juli 2015 14:15 An: Mathew Newton; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Hi Matthew, Thanks for your question - it's good to be able to clarify. If the proposal is accepted, we would base our evaluation of IPv6 requests on the number of actual end sites. An LIR could then document its need for addresses according to a range of criteria such as longevity, security requirements for an end site, or the need for aggregation in the hierarchy level of that end site and higher levels in the network topology. This is what is meant by encapsulation of the assignment. An end site cannot be repeated in another part of the addressing plan to qualify again under the same assessment criteria -- this would be a multiplication of the same assignment. So, for example, it would be possible to request extra address space for security and above hierarchy for the same end site, but it would not be possible to mention the same end site again in another part of the addressing plan to request a further reservation for security and hierarchy. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC On 09/07/15 18:18, Mathew Newton wrote:
Hi Marco,
-----Original Message----- From: policy-announce [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 09 July 2015 13:20 The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Thank you to you and colleagues for this. It can't have been the easiest analysis to undertake, not least given the multiple aspects to consider. It is clear however that a great deal of thought and consideration has gone into it.
I need to take some time to fully consider all of the detail however my initial view of the interpretation and proposed implementation is very positive.
Could I possibly seek some clarification on the following sentence from the second-to-last paragraph of Section A?
'Each assignment will be taken into account only once towards the total count of needed IPv6 space for an organisation and will not be multiplied by the times it is encapsulated in higher addressing plan levels.'
Whilst I don't have a specific concern, and it may well be an insignificant statement, I thought it worthwhile double-checking what this means?
Regards,
Mathew
participants (3)
-
LIR (BIT I 5) -
Marco Schmidt -
Mathew Newton