Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

[Garry Glendown garry@localhost]

Sascha Lenz wrote:
> Why do we concentrate on "multihoming" now as a requirement for
> PI-addresses? That's not what "Provider Independent" means to me, even
> if this is the most likely reason for such a request.
> 
> What about those who just want a portable block, no renumbering?

Agreed - from my 11+ years of being an ISP (well, mostly in the last 5
years or so) with the growing dependency on Internet for many companies,
it's enough work for many places to renumber their network. IT-folks
know it, try to avoid it as long as possible. When they finally need to
do it, e.g. because of switching ISPs, they want to avoid it in the
future at almost any cost. That's why we get almost all of our requests
for PI space. Multi-homing, though not as common yet, may become an
issue, maybe another 3-5 years down the road, but IMO isn't a reason at
all for PI-space. All you have to do is make sure you get a provider
that will allow a sub-allocation to be announced by another provider.
Why PI then?

> Simple IPv6 PI Assignment policy:

Your short version seems to cover most anything I can think of. Agreed
on the service fee, too. As for who charges it, there's two sides of the
medal there ... I can't really tell yet if assigning the Provider to
charge it for RIPE is a good idea or not. Probably the easiest, though
additional hassles in case of an end user switching his (primary) ISP
will follow. Or what happens if the customer refuses (or is unable) to
pay the PI dues to the LIR? Couple of things need to be worked out I guess.

-garry