Hi Max, Thanks a lot for responding. To make it short.
I think we fully agree on the goals of the policy proposal and your inputs below, however, unless I’m plain wrong, the NCC mandate is to follow the policy text, especially if there is some contradiction with the arguments, impact analysis, etc. And this is what I saw here (and unfortunately, I discovered only today, because before I missed comparing the 3 pieces). My reading has been always only in the policy text. If that’s what it is to be enforced, I think is insufficient to comply with the arguments and impact analysis. If is otherwise, then I agree. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Maximilian Wilhelm <[email protected]> Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 18:24 Para: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi Jordi, > none of this will change our decision, but it would make it more easy > to the rest of the readers to understand why you're so angry *right now*, > while neither the announcement of the extention nor the voices of support > in the four weeks following said announcement seem to have bothered you > in the least. > > [Jordi] I’m not angry at all, I just realized now that the text is not consistent. I think it has been clear in my previous email to Sander. I think now is clear that we all have the same view, but the text don’t look correct to me, unless the NCC don’t care and in the evaluation they will read the arguments of the policy proposal, which I believe are confirming what I’m saying (trying to summarize: up to /64, temporary, not for broadband, not for “permanent” datacenter services). As said before somewhere (I'm not sure wether on a RIPE meeting or here on the list), the RS folks said, that they use the proposal text as well as the summary/rationale as guidance what is allowed and what isn't. Maybe Ingrid, Andrea, Marco, * from the NCC can comment on that? So to quote the proposal summary (last paragraph): --snip-- Intended use cases for IPv6 PI space in the spirit of this policy proposal are the use in (public) WIFI networks (like the WIFI at RIPE meetings), as transfer networks on PNIs or other PTP-links/VPNs to users or customers, or for housing/hosting for servers in data centres. The use of IPv6 PI space for DSL/cable/FFTH/etc. subscribers is explicitly not an intended use case for this policy proposal. --snip-- That's quite clear IMHO (and does not fully match with your summary). The obvious and long discussed goal of this whole thing still is to make PI space useable again for "the little guy", community projects, etc. As you well know the motivation to do so has risen with public WIFI networks + SLAAC in mind, but any other means of address assignment to clients (as you mentioned and the IA states) are OK as well. This is the RIPE AP, it should not mention technical details which are subject to change anyway. Best Max -- "Does is bother me, that people hurt others, because they are to weak to face the truth? Yeah. Sorry 'bout that." -- Thirteen, House M.D. ********************************************** 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.
