Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations

Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

Évaluation: Cohérent · The author first conditions multiple-subnet use on a BCP126 reference and proposes BCP169 for ASNs, then defends the clarity and abuse-prevention rationale and supplies replacement clauses. The clauses develop the same preference rather than withdrawing support for the mechanism.

Réserves: This is support for the specified conditions, not an unconditional endorsement of every policy provision. · The offered wording does not establish adoption or consensus.

7 déc. 2014

As discussed at the meeting, using multiple subnets is ok as far as reference to BCP126 is in there.

8 déc. 2014

So references to best practices is good. In this case one for the v4/v6 and one for ASN

8 déc. 2014

These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services or GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchanges) as recommended in BCP126 and BCP169 respectively.

Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

Évaluation: Cohérent · The later preference for following replacement BCPs without a new PDP extends the earlier instruction that implementers should adjust as best practices change. The author explicitly preserves an exception when there is reason to do otherwise, so this is not an unconditional transfer of all policy decisions to future BCP authors.

Réserves: The RFC2026 passage is attributed supporting material, not a separate personal vote. · The messages do not specify who would decide that an exception is justified.

8 déc. 2014

Best practices changes over time and implementer shall adjust

9 déc. 2014

The policy should follow new BCPs( which update, replace old ones) without going through PDP unless we have reasons to do otherwise.

9 déc. 2014

Either we add the requirements in the policy or we refer to the BCP. I support the last option.

Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author asks why RIPE NCC IPv4 qualification criteria appear in an AFRINIC IPv6 PI proposal. This identifies a concrete regional-applicability question; it is not a general rejection of provider-independent assignments or of every external reference. One question supplies no sequence of personal positions to compare.

Réserves: The quoted eligibility clause belongs to the draft under discussion, not to a rule the author independently endorses. · The proposed regional-name correction in the reply is another participant's explanation.

11 juil. 2006

Can someone (jordi or others) explains to me what why should RIPE NCC actual IPV4 policy applied for AfriNIC region in the IPv6 IP assignement ?

Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations · Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · Questioning an apparently miscopied region-specific eligibility rule in 2006 and supporting explicit technical best-practice references for anycast in 2014 concern different kinds of reference. The supplied messages show no necessary contradiction, but the long gap and absence of a comparable PI position prevent a broad claim of consistent policy preferences across the two proposals.

Réserves: A concern about which registry's rules apply cannot be generalized into opposition to all externally maintained standards. · Only the named messages and proposals are covered.

11 juil. 2006

what why should RIPE NCC actual IPV4 policy applied for AfriNIC region in the IPv6 IP assignement ?

8 déc. 2014

So references to best practices is good. In this case one for the v4/v6 and one for ASN

9 déc. 2014

unless we have reasons to do otherwise.