Hi Jordi,
Perfect! Full Support :-)
Regards,
Carsten
> Am 24.11.2016 um 22:23 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> After reading several times our proposal, I think I got your point and I
> guess you’re right.
>
> The actual text may be interpreted to limit the subsequent allocation to be
> based only on the planned longevity, but not the other possibilities.
>
> I think it can be reworded as:
>
> “If an organisation needs more address space, it must provide documentation
> justifying its new requirements, as described in section 5.1.2. (number of
> users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and
> geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of
> infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation). The
> allocation made will be based on those requirements.”
>
> If we want to get the subsequent allocation “automatically synchronized” with
> the initial one, we should omit the text in “()”. I think is the right way to
> do so, if in the future the initial allocation text is changed again, most
> probably, there are many chances that we avoid to rewrite the text of the
> subsequent allocation.
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Jordi
> Palet Martinez <[email protected]>
> Responder a: <[email protected]>
> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2016, 21:39
> Para: <[email protected]>
> CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising
> the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> Thanks for your support.
>
> Regarding your question, yes the idea is to follow the same criteria as
> for the initial allocation. Do you think the text is not clear and requieres
> some clarification ?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> El 24 nov 2016, a las 21:04, Carsten Brückner <[email protected]>
> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hello WG,
>
> I support this proposal. It will help current LIRs the receive of a
> suitable (large) subsequent IPv6 address space according to their specific
> needs. At the same time, it will give them the opportunity to set up a
> senseful IPv6 Adressplan with respect to the Goals of IPv6 address space
> management (Chapter 3 - ripe-655). Overall it will support the further IPv6
> Deployment in large organizations.
>
> But I have a question to the proposed paragraph in 5.2.3:
> "If an organization needs more address space, it must provide
> documentation justifying its requirements for the planned longevity of the
> allocation. The allocation made will be based on this requirement.“
>
> Does that mean „planned longevity“ in sense of
> "https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation";
> paragraph 2 (b)?
> Is this wording correct for the main goal of the proposal to synchronize,
> with respect to the allocation size?
>
> Regards,
> Carsten
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 24.11.2016 um 14:20 schrieb Marco Schmidt <[email protected]>:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and
> Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation
> requirements
> with the initial allocation requirements.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <[email protected]> before 23 December 2016.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> 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.
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
