+1 for the proposal Am 24.11.2016 22:29 schrieb <[email protected]>:
> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Silvia Hagen) > 2. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) > 3. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Carsten Br?ckner) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:59:00 +0000 > From: Silvia Hagen <[email protected]> > To: Marco Schmidt <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal > (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E70ABF899B@hex02> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear WG > > > > I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of > subsequent space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It > also helps organizations, that have received their space before the updated > initial allocation policy can receive space based on the same criteria. > > > > Silvia Hagen > > Chair Swiss IPv6 Council > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] Im > Auftrag von Marco Schmidt > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising > the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > > > > 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]<mailto:[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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy- > wg/attachments/20161124/9704a2bc/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:23:16 +0100 > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal > (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 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 Br?ckner <[email protected]> > escribi?: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:29:33 +0100 > From: Carsten Br?ckner <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal > (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > 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 Br?ckner <[email protected]> > escribi?: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6 > ************************************************ >
