Hello, I support section 5.4.2 removal as proposed. It just adds additional administrative overhead to NCC and validity of such assignments can be eventually reviewed during standard ARC process.
- Daniel On 5/22/19 4:25 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Hi all, > > As commented this morning at the end of the WG meeting, I've been thinking > about this issue many times and in fact, in AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC, as > part of *other* more complex IPv6 policy proposals, we successfully achieved > consensus on removing the equivalent text. > > ARIN has also changed this. In my opinion, the way they handle it, is too > complex and not needed, but if someone want to read: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-8-2-2-extra-large-sites > > I've not (yet) done this in RIPE because I thought it is a so small change > that doesn't make sense to tackle alone, but this morning I heard otherwise. > > So ... here we are. By the way, as I always state, I will love some other > folks that are willing to contribute, if so let me know in private so we can > even organize an on-site meeting. However, in this case I think this policy > proposal is just an "empty" one (only remove text, so nothing to draft ...) > ... see below. > > This is our actual text > (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assignments_shorter): > *** > 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site > When a single End Site requires an assignment shorter than a /48, it must > request the assignment with documentation or materials that justify the > request. Requests for multiple or additional prefixes exceeding a /48 > assignment for a single End Site will be processed and reviewed (i.e., > evaluation of justification) at the RIR/NIR level. > > Note: There is no experience at the present time with the assignment of > multiple network prefixes to the same End Site. Having the RIR review all > such assignments is intended to be a temporary measure until some experience > has been gained and some common policies can be developed. In addition, > additional work at defining policies in this space will likely be carried out > in the near future. > *** > > In my opinion (as I've done in other RIRs), we should just *remove* the > complete section. > > Extreme example case. If an LIR decides to assign /47 to all their customers, > and in the future, they need to come back to the NCC for more space, they > will need to justify it according to the existing policy at that time. > > I may understand (even if I don't agree) that somebody want to have the NCC > keep doing some evaluation on this. If we want to go this way, we will need > to define with a short text what we want. > > So, opinions? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > >
