[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Are there people here that say that a small change of the current policy is
> a problem?

There are always people who will say that change is a problem.

> The change would be that the list I did mention earlier is a
> valid reason to get a IPv6 PI range.

You gave a "list", quoting back from that email:

> - dedicated servers (servers are owned by us)
> - co located servers (servers are owned by clients)
> - VPN (we have a few clients that use it, per VPN client at least 1)
> - VPS guests (per VPS guest at least 1 IP)
> - https (per host an IP)

How many addresses and prefixes are you talking about? How is routing
arranged for these, are the in different ASNs etc?

I don't see how that "list" would suddenly make you qualify for "PI"
especially as there are no details at all, just that you have some hosts
somewhere.

"HTTPS" seems to always be a great target for claiming you need an extra
IP address, but why can't you host that in PA space? DNS can be updated
quite easily and voila host moved.

> If no one is saying that it is a problem at this moment to create a formal
> proposal to change it (or a new proposal based on the current one) I would
> like to create it the coming week. The target of the change will be to make
> it a little bit easier to get IPv6 PI for organizations, so more
> organizations could start offering their services on IPv6 (PA isn't enough
> for many organizations if they are not the LIR).

And why and how don't they qualify for the current IPv6-PI rules?

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090714/81135c4c/attachment.sig>