Marco Schmidt is the Manager of Registration Services at the RIPE NCC. He is responsible for overseeing the registration and maintenance of Internet number resources in the RIPE NCC's service region. He also manages the implementation of accepted policies in RIPE NCC procedures and operations.
Marco first joined the RIPE NCC as an IP Resource Analyst (IPRA) in the Registry Services department, where he worked for five years. In that role, he gained valuable experience in evaluating IPv4, IPv6 and Autonomous System Number requests while providing support to the RIPE NCC membership. Later, he became the RIPE NCC's Policy Development Officer. In this position, he supported and drove the RIPE community's Policy Development Processes (PDP) both externally and internally.
The current combination of RIPE policies and rules for RIPE NCC membership enable IPv6 stockpiling. And what might sound like an unlikely activity is not only happening, but is actually on the rise. Here we look at the trends and some of the potential consequences and ask where we go from here.
It was about one year ago that the RIPE community reached consensus on a policy proposal that introduced additional criteria for initial IPv6 allocations. We thought it was time to look back at the origins of this proposal and see how the change has worked out since.
The RIPE NCC has developed an additional interface for the RIPE community mailing lists – something that we hope will encourage more interaction and discussion among the RIPE community.
When re-designing www.ripe.net, we paid extra attention to how we can improve the interface for the Policy Development Process (PDP). This open and transparent process determines RIPE Policies, which govern the distribution and use of nearly all Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region. Ou…
Country codes in the RIPE Database serve a purely operational purpose. Nevertheless, questions can arise when defining which country code to use or what the code means. Let’s look into how country codes are maintained in the Database.
We have implemented a temporary feature for any members and other resource holders concerned that they might be forced to transfer their IP addresses to another party due to threats or coercion. This article explains how this feature works, what it does and does not prevent, and who can activate it.
Hello ExSiXXsuser,
Neither the RIPE IPv6 policies in the early 2000 nor the current IPv6 policy contain a specific recommendation or mandate for LIRs to assign static prefixes to customers. The current IPv6 policy mentions the minimum value of a /64 but makes no comments about static or dynamic assignments.
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684#assignment
You might be interested to know that currently the RIPE BCOP TF is working on a document that seems to deal with situation like yours
http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf
Maybe you are interested to join that discussion?
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC
Hello ExSiXXsuser, Neither the RIPE IPv6 policies in the early 2000 nor the current IPv6 policy contain a specific recommendation or mandate for LIRs to assign static prefixes to customers. The current IPv6 policy mentions the minimum value of a /64 but makes no comments about static or dynamic assignments. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684#assignment You might be interested to know that currently the RIPE BCOP TF is working on a document that seems to deal with situation like yours http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf Maybe you are interested to join that discussion? Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Showing 1 comment(s)