[address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

[Enrico Diacci]

I try to go beyond the 2015-05: 

When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6
may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent
to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and
proving to have it completed within one year.

This new /22 will in no way be transferred before 3-5 years.

I tried to remove the term of 18 months: what do you think about?

Regards, Enrico Diacci.
it.tsnet


-Messaggio originale-
Da: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Per conto
di Jim Reid
Inviato: mercoledì 11 maggio 2016 10:05
A: Riccardo Gori
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG
Oggetto: [address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05


> On 11 May 2016, at 08:53, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote:
> 
> Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change 
> is accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or 
> re-invented to meet better the tasks You as a chair should accept this 
> and should help the community to understand how to follow up with a 
> reasonable solution

The WG’s co-chairs have not expressed an opinion on this proposal. This is
to be expected since they have to make the consensus determination if
2015-05 reaches that point.

Others have pointed out flaws and raised substantial objections. These
issues have not been answered, let alone resolved.

Supporters of 2015-05 should accept this and should help the community to
understand how to follow up with a reasonable solution.

We’re waiting.


PS: Apologies for a relevant and meaningful Subject: header.




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

[address-policy-wg] R: agreement

[Enrico Diacci]

Hi Riccardo,

 

This policy is so good in 2 main things:
- address the problem of customers make the customers giving new entrants a
little bit more space to handle their grow and customer acquisition
- incentive the use IPv6. Again this is the ONLY policy that advice LIRs to
use IPv6 actually



mainly the second one in my opinion is the important thing: if a LIR wants
take advantage of this proposal it MUST demonstrate having deployed IPv6 in
its network.

 

We could also make stronger this idea of really using IPv6 requesting 4 (or
5 now) stars of RIPEness.

 

So this may be considered such a prize to really do effort in implementing
IPv6 (and in Italy we know how we must facilitate it, with less than 0,5% of
adoption).

 

Regards,

Enrico Diacci.

 

it.tsnet



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature