[address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

[ ... ]
> Regarding the /32 or /48, I think we had very long discussions on that. I
> just don't believe the /48 will be reachable from all the networks, because
> many filter longer prefixes than /32, and this is not going to change
> easily, so consequently, I don't think people requiring PI, will take the
> risk. Is a non-sense asking for PI but not being sure it will be visible
> everywhere ... I've some cases of critical infrastructures which have got
> /48 instead of /32 and they are not visible, quite nice and *critical* for a
> critical infrastructure :-(

I am *very* reluctant to accept the reasoning that we have to distribute "big"
blocks (for any definition of big), because some ISPs have developed a habit
of installing filters which are not compatible, or rather "properly take into
account", developing address distribution mechanisms.

I'd rather see a discussion regarding the "primary" target for this policy.
Btw, my reasoning below is related to the "LIR/no LIR/LIR later" issue which I
will address in a different message.

So what's our target? I read the proposal as primarily being relevant to (quote
from the proposal) "End User Organisations". This is what we usually refer to as
a Site. And a Site usually gets a /48. Ignoring the discussions regarding *this*
paricular default for the moment.

For me, the conclusion is to use the /48 assingment size under this policy - unless
a "globally coordinated" approach would suggest otherwise, of course.

So here is a formal change request from my end to replace /32 by /48, in particular
as there is a provision for requesting more, if necessary (quote from the proposal):

"The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However, a larger assignment can be
provided if duly documented and justified."

While I do support the general idea of PI-Assignments for IPv6, I do *not* support
this proposal as it is worded *right now*.

Wilfried.