This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Wed Apr 6 02:22:00 CEST 2005
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:40:24AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote: > >I guess you would agree with me that it's currently no problem at all > >to obtain an ASN and IPv4 PI if you want to multihome. Right? > > Umm. The proposed v6 policy seems weaker than that? No, it's still too strict. It excludes "end sites" (for whatever values of that... looking at the some recent RIPE region allocations, even outspoken consulting firms with no ISP operation visible can get /32s under current policy). In IPv4, you as an end site can get an ASN and PI space without being a LIR. And that makes total sense, as an end site is not a Local Internet REGISTRY. There is no steady ongoing human work to be done (hostmaster services), there is just a one-time registration of a prefix and ASN which is being paid by the sponsoring LIR via the scoring algo (ASNs even paid yearly IIRC). I see no good reason to handle that different in IPv6 world. In IPv4, it's enough to have a valid TECHNICAL reason to need an ASN (multihoming), and you get one. Same goes for a PI. You need addresses, you get addresses. All you need is a sponsoring LIR (which you usually pay for that service, directly or indirectly). And now in IPv6 with an address space of 128 bits compared to 32 bits you suddenly say that "needing address space" is not a good enough reason anymore? > AFAIR, you'll have to justify half of the v4 address space.. and you > don't even need to do that to get a v6 block ? Even for IPv4 allocations to LIRs you don't need to justify anything anymore (aside needing any IPv4 space *g*). https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-324.html#first_alloc /21 without questions asked. The key difference between the proposed changed IPv6 alloc policy and the IPv4 alloc policy is that the latter doesn't exclude end sites (formerly called "enterprise LIRs"). What we have in IPv4 is two types of end sites: those who get PI space and those who like to sponsor RIPE with more money and become LIR, receive their initial alloc, do their first and single assignment and be done with it. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]