Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6
On 28/10/2020 13:03, Nick Hilliard wrote: Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:13: Could you explain why not? because the purpose of a registry is to ensure accurate registration information rather than to micromanage resources. As far as I can see, the RIPE NCC is doing its job here and there's no need to instruct it to go off and do something else. There's no shortage of ipv6 address space and no reason to think that we will ever end up with a future shortage. So there is no reason for people to treat ipv6 address blocks as having future scarcity value, which means that there is no motivation to "stockpile". I.e. the entire basis of your argument is void. +1. I also strongly believe that there is no real problem to solve here. Paul.
Re: [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number
Hi, On 07/05/2019 14:34, Dominik Nowacki wrote: Hi Maxim, What stops you from applying for the ASN once the cables are buried several years down the road, and while the build process is ongoing from using a default route instead ? Nothing, of course. But it is a little hard to announce your own address space behind a provider if you don't have an AS. And having your upstream originate it just means pain (and usually downtime) whilst they convert you from a non-BGP service to a BGP-enabled one. I personally have no problem with making it easier to obtain an AS if you intend to multihome at some point in the future (measured in years if necessary - let people who want to do the Right Thing from day one do that). There are plenty of 32 bit AS numbers available, they are not a scarce resource and we as a community should probably not treat them as such. Paul.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-01 Review Phase (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
On 11/03/2019 12:37, Marco Schmidt wrote: Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2019-01, "Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA"" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal is just updating the documentation to better confirm what the intent - and actual application - of the policy is. This is a Good Thing. I support it. Paul.
