Hello Jan, all, Dne 28.6.2017 v 17:23 Jan Zorz - Go6 napsal(a): > Agree. Look like we are heading for draft v.4 ;) > > Let's collect more feedback and then fix the text...
I have an amendment idea that I partially think it may have its place in the document. The thing is, many ISPs don't really understand the difference between resources (sub-)allocation and assignment. ISPs that are also LIRs just know they cannot assign more than /48 to a customer (end-site, to be precise ;) ). But if their customer is a small non-LIR ISP, who is requesting IP addresses for deploying IPv6 to its clients, they should not give them an assignment of shorter prefix but rather a suballocation or a aggregated assignment. If the small ISP only gets assigned /48 and tries to divide it to its customers, then not only is there little room for assigning "at least /56 to each customer" but it also is breaking the RIPE IPv6 policy by sub-assigning assignments. This is quite different situation from the IPv4 scenario, where small non-LIR ISP typically employ CGN, where it's completely valid to just use IP addresses assigned to the ISP itself. I already got a few questions concerning this topic. The questions are: 1. Is this topic important enough to be in this document? 2. Is this something RIPE-specific or is the situation in other RIRs similar? If you think it's worth it, I can try to draft some text around this topic. -- Ondřej Caletka CESNET
smime.p7s
Description: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
