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

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Hi Wilfried,

Hi All,


> 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.

Imho, that's a risky thing to say. :-))
Afaik, experiments can be extended, and then extended, and later extended 
a bit more...


> 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).

Out of plain curiosity: are really those alternatives bound to happen in 
say 5-10 years?


> 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 !

Here i fully agree with Wilfried!
If operator A is filtering out PI network B, then customer C (which is 
paying operator A) is entitled to complain and "suggest" operator A to 
correct its filtering (or he can always find a new operator, with a 
better customer needs' focus!)


> 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 ?

A lot more reasonable yes, but if he needs an upgrade from /48 -> /40 he 
should get a /40, not immediately a /32. :-)


> Regards,
> Jordi


Regards,

./Carlos 
--------------
          Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

  "Internet is just routes (196663/675), naming (millions) and... people!"