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

Hi Wilfried,

Thanks again for your inputs.

I fully understand your point, but you need to balance it with being
temporary. We are not allocating this space for ever. Also it is not clear
to me that a few hundreds of extras /32 will make a difference in terms of
lifetime, specially having in a few years alternative technical solutions
(again we are doing a temporary thing).

On the other way around, what operators do to filter or not, is not our
problem (as RIPE community), and we can't do nothing against that, so, do
you really think it make sense to arrange a policy that may work only in
some networks ? Let's be realistic !

One possibility will be to allocate /48 but keep reserved the remaining /32.
If the applicant justify that the /48 is getting filtered, then he may opt
to justify to obtain the /32. Is this a possible compromise solution ?

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>
> Organización: UniVie - ACOnet
> Responder a: <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>
> Fecha: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:14:56 +0000
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [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.
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.