Hey Ingrid,
Could you please post a link to any archives relating to the discussions re your Proposal "2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs".
I would like the review their statements and positions to see if they are applicable in this region.
Feel free to send to me directly if there is a lot of information.
Re the modifications made to 2009-06 relating to 2009-05, I am not sure how those modifications addressed the need of separately connected network locations to be able to announce 'and be seen'.
I understand that RIPE NCC, APNIC and indeed probably all RIR's make the comment regarding their 'being no guarantee of an allocation being routable that is assigned to them', but that in my opinion is just a cop out when we are fully aware of a community project which is designed to make ranges of a certain size (in a certain allocation pool) un-routable.
It is easy for an RIR to claim that they aren't responsible for the routability, remove any restriction on de-aggregation which suggests no need to additional allocations - but do so in the full knowledge that it is impractical for the LIR to actually do so and maintain the highest level of connectivity possible is irresponsible.. That is the RIR burying its head in the sand and pretending the issue doesn't exist.
All this on top of the fact that there is an obscene amount of IPv6 available and I assumed we're not worried about a rush on IPv6, and that de-aggregating to requirements has the exact same effect on the routing table as extra allocations/announcements, that this issue is really philosophical as opposed to any technical impact.
Right now we're trying to encourage as many people as possible to uptake IPv6 and that any barriers to that uptake should be torn down with all speed.
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Ingrid Wijte
Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2010 1:18 AM
To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: [sig-policy] situation in RIPE REgion: prop-081 and prop-083
Hello,
In the announcement mails about prop-081 and prop-083, the situation in
the RIPE region was mentioned. I would like to make a clarification
about this.
prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8:
In the RIPE PDP there currently are two proposals regarding the last
/8.
2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html )
2008-06 Use of final /8
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html).
2009-04 proposes that the allocations and assignments from last /8
should be used to facilitate IPv6 deployment while 2008-06 focuses on
ensuring that each existing and new LIR receives routable IPv4
addresses
that they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services during the
transition phase to IPv6.
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations:
In the RIPE region we had a similar proposal "2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32
Allocations for LIRs"
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html).
This proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support in the community.
However, this discussion led to another proposal "2009-06 Removing
Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy"
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html) which
reached
consensus and was implemented in October 2009.
Regards,
Ingrid Wijte
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy