Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Let's pretend that the HAL computer company decides it needs a /40 to
cover its internal needs for the next 100 years. What kind of policy
would be needed to allow that?

   Brian

leo vegoda wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:05:18PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Nothing prevents you from *not* routing those addresses on the
> > Internet?  Unless of course it's a problem in the global-v6 policy, which
> > should then be reviewed.
> 
> The current policy says that to "qualify for an initial allocation
> of IPv6 address space, an organisation must [...] plan to provide
> IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s
> by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated
> address allocation".
> 
> The implication is that an LIR must plan to announce its allocation
> to the public Internet.
> 
> However, the wording is vague and leads to uncertainty for those
> requesting space and those evaluating requests. I would like to
> see the policy updated to use crisp, clear, unambiguous language.
> If there is a consensus that unique, public addresses should not be
> available to private networks that will not connect to the Internet
> then that should be stated clearly. If that is not the case then
> the reverse should be made clear.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> leo vegoda
> RIPE NCC
> Registration Services Manager

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK