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] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Wed May 23 06:43:50 CEST 2007
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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]