[rpd] Comments on AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01

Fri Apr 27 20:42:54 UTC 2018

Hi Aleruchi,

Exactly, if you can justify the need, you get what you need!

Or do you think something in my proposed text looks against that?

On the 8th of May session, I’m going to present “BCOP for operators: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-customers &

Deployment Survey”.

I think it is a perfect match to understand the RIPE690 BCOP and then may be easier to get all the rationale for the policy proposals.

Regards,

Jordi

De: aleruchi chuku <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>
Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 22:10
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet at theipv6company.com>, <rpd at afrinic.net>, "sm+afrinic at elandsys.com" <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
Asunto: Re: [rpd] Comments on AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01

I will like to join Moonesamy in appreciating your proposal for an update to the current IPV6 Policy.

The proposed update indeed makes the policy clearer and has removed some of the ambiguity contained in the current version.

On the concern raised on...... "End sites or users must be assigned a prefix that is a multiple of "n" /64’s which must be enough to meet their current and planned needs" ......being for small service providers, I am of the opinion that the size of the administrative organization does not matter as long as they can justify their Current and Planned need.

Regards
Aleruchi Chuku

On Friday, April 27, 2018, 12:27:44 PM GMT+1, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com> wrote: 

Hi Jordi,

I read AFPUB-2018-V6-001-DRAFT01.  I would like to thank you for 

proposing an update to the existing IPv6 policy as there has been 

changes from the SDO since the policy was written.

The existing policy states that the RIR "is not concerned about which 

address size an LIR actually assigns".  This proposal changes that as 

it has 'End sites or users must be assigned a prefix that is a 

multiple of "n" /64's which must be enough to meet their current and 

planned needs ...'  Does that make the IPv6 policy one which is based 

on a "needs-basis" for a small [1] service provider?

The proposed change in "6.8" sets a requirement where IPv6 PI space 

is dependent upon qualification for IPv4 PI space.  What is the 

rationale for keeping the dependency?

Regards,

S. Moonesamy

1. The word "small" is relative.

_______________________________________________

RPD mailing list

RPD at afrinic.net

https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 

**********************************************
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 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180427/fbcb5efb/attachment-0001.html>