[OT] Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

[Jim Fleming]

"APNIC has established the global list."

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/current/msg00165.html
RE: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting)
To: "'Turchanyi Geza'" <turchany at sunserv.kfki.hu>, "'Dave Pratt'"
<djp-ripe-lists at djp.net>
Subject: RE: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting)
From: "Ray Plzak" <plzak at arin.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:56:22 -0400
Cc: <lir-wg at ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0110171504140.11682-100000 at sunserv.kfki.hu>
Reply-To: <plzak at arin.net>
Sender: owner-ipv6-wg at ripe.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

APNIC has established the global list.  Hopefully you will see an
announcement from RIPE NCC shortly.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> [mailto:owner-ipv6-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of
> Turchanyi Geza
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:37 AM
> To: Dave Pratt
> Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting)
>
>
>
> Dave and all,
>
> Untill now I postponed my comments, waiting for the global
> mailing list.
> However, as there is still no mailing list, I would like to make some
> comments now.
>
> The firs lesson what I learned from the IPv4 address
> allocation history,
> that allocating addresses for ever has good consequences for early
> adopters and bad consequences for the late adopters.
>
> Early adopter should have some benefit, however,
> colonialisation of the
> address space should be avoided.
>
> The IPv6 address space is not as big as it seems to be, as the
> limiting effects of the multihoming, renumbering and
> aggregation are not
> clear yet.
>
> Therefore I suggest to introduce sliding allocation time
> window (ATW). The
> size
> of the ATW can be fine tuned by future policies, however,
> this could never
> reduce the already allocated address space allocation time, however,
> might increase it.
>
> For example, the ATW can be set initially for 10 year. Any
> ISP (LIR) will
> receive its address block for 3ATW, and any customer of the LIR will
> receive its address block for ATW.
>
> When the ATW expire, It should be checked, that the old
> policy is still
> valid. If yes, tha allocation can be extended for an other
> ATW period of
> time. If not, the customer will receive a now address block
> according to
> the new policy, and with the customer should renumber its
> network within
> the new ATW period of time and give back the old address space.
>
> When all customer of a LIR should have already migrated to
> the new address
> block, then the LIR should give back its address block, and
> this can be
> reused later on by others, according to the new policy.
>
> In this long enough allocation policy we can
>  run the network
>  minimize burocracy
>  save the future
>
> Best,
>
>  Geza
>
>
>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cathy Murphy" <cathym at arin.net>
To: "Jim Fleming" <jfleming at anet.com>
Cc: <v6wg at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:47 AM
Subject: [OT] Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE


>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > Is APNIC part of the US or USA ?
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/attendee_list.pl?event-id=1
>
> Jim -
>
> The fact that participants from the US attended the recent APNIC meeting
> has no bearing on IPv6 policy discussions, which is the purpose of this
> list.
>
> Cathy Murphy
>
> Speaking only for myself, that gets me in enough trouble...
>
>
>
>