Carlos, Jordi,
thank you both for the heads up (I'm a little behind on the policy
mailing list)
On 04/12/2017 01:28 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Hi Yanis, All,
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Yanis,
That sounds surprising, but in any case, a few weeks ago, a new
policy proposal to facilitate this has been approved. I think is
already implemented or it will a matter of a few days, so you should
not have any problem at all to justify an allocation for 1.6 millions
of customers or even much more, with a /48.
i.e. this message....... (if the estimation was correct, the
announcement will happen very soon!)
===========================
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:04:06
From: Marco Schmidt <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 Proposal Accepted (Synchronising
the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Dear colleagues,
Consensus has been reached on 2016-05,
"Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies".
This policy change matches the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements
with the initial allocation requirements. In addition to the existing
justification based on past utilisation, it is now also possible to
document new needs, including the 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.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
The new RIPE Document is ripe-684 and is available at:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684
We estimate that this proposal will take around two weeks to fully
implement.
We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete
and the new procedures are in place.
Thank you to everyone who provided input.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC
===========================
Cheers,
Carlos
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Yannis
Nikolopoulos <[email protected]>
Responder a: <[email protected]>
Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 11:24
Para: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]>
CC: Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available
for comments and suggestions
On 04/11/2017 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
>
>> 3.2.2: /48 for all is most practical & most pragmatic? How many
/32 we
>> need to burn for our end users? We have ~1.6M residential users
and
>> our /29 is definitely not enough. Is RIPE onboard with that?
>
> Yes. /48 per site is ok as per all IETF and RIPE documents I am
aware of.
>
> So if your /29 is too small for your customer base, go get
another one.
> I know ISPs who returned their /29 before they even started serious
> deployment, and received larger space. I encourage people to do
just this.
>
That's great to hear but when we upgraded our /32 to a /29
(~2011), this
was not the case unfortunately (meaning that RIPE would not accept
our
long term addressing plan as a reason enough to get multiple /29s
**********************************************
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.
