[address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

That short version is one of the possible paths that I tried, and I'm happy
to follow it again, if:

1) RIPE NCC staff confirm that will be enough criteria for them

2) A good number of folks in the list agree and confirm *NOW* and even if a
smaller number of folks confirm that they disagree *NOW*

What I want to avoid at all means is to go back again for a path that will
take months and then we may have nothing. In that case, I prefer to go in
small steps and improve it once we have an IPv6 PI that covers a good % of
the cases.

I learned the lesson with previous proposals that trying to go for *all* in
one shoot, don't really work.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Garry Glendown <garry at nethinks.com>
> Organización: NETHINKS GmbH, Fulda
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Wed, 23 May 2007 06:43:50 +0200
> Para: Sascha Lenz <slz at baycix.de>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19
> June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User
> Organisations)
> 
> 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
> 




**********************************************
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.