[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

I was thinking to change it that way that is will allow (in the policy) that
this are also valid claims to get a IPv6 PI range and when you need an extra
range you will be able to get it when you meet the earlier mentioned ratio.

De-aggregation is not something that I would add (if not yet specified in
the current policy). Sub allocations to clients without changing it in the
RIPE database should be possible if you ask me. This way it would be
possible (if you follow the policy) that it can be used for small
sub-assignments to co location and/or VPN users (please note it wouldn't be
registered in the RIPE database, it is the same as some current IPv4
networks use IPv4 PI address space).

Some networks aren't currently a LIR, so they can't get an IPv6 PA range (if
I am correct) and with this change in policy it should reduce the number of
IPv6 PI request (else we would need to request a IPv6 PI range per VPN
connection and/or per co location client).

Regards, Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Hogewoning [mailto:marcoh at marcoh.net] 
Sent: dinsdag 14 juli 2009 14:38
To: Stream Service || Mark Scholten
Cc: 'Address Policy Working Group'
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Are there people here that say that a small change of the current  
> policy is
> a problem? The change would be that the list I did mention earlier  
> is a
> valid reason to get a IPv6 PI range.
>
> 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).
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Mark Scholten


What change are you thinking of ? If it goes in the direction to allow  
sub-assingment (in any way shape or form) from within a PI block I  
wouldn't support it.

And to answer your question, I guess that there will always be some  
objection to change...it's in people's nature.

MarcoH