DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)

>Well, the question came up on this list (on whether "web server hosting"
>would be a valid purpose for IPv6 PI), and it seem that other people had 
>issues requesting IPv4 PI for customers that do "web server hosting".

Sure, I mean the way I see it, it isn't an allocation to an end user, 
as the assignment holder yourself you are allowing the customer to use 
your infrastructure addresses and as such you have full responsibility for them.

Since we don't live in a (well) adopted RFC2616/RFC3546 world, each customer
with an SSL cert needs to use one of your addresses for this purpose, this 
to me is a valid reason for needing an assignment of $size based on your 
usage expectations and growth model.

Would like to think that I have been involved in numerous PI applications 
over the years (even recently) where this has been used as a justification
and not a single IPRA has had an objection when this is stated
clearly and shown to be the case.

I think I would like to see the original application wording.


------------------------------------------------
David Freedman
Group Network Engineering 
Claranet Limited
http://www.clara.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net]
Sent: Wed 7/22/2009 10:16
To: David Freedman
Cc: Gert Doering; Dmitry Kiselev; Remco van Mook; Address Policy Working Group
Subject: Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly  complicated when requesting PI space)
 
Hi,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:09:32AM +0100, David Freedman wrote:
> Agree, i've always treated such requests from PI Applicants as valid "infrastructure" purpose, 
> NCC have always agreed, surely this is a non-issue?

Well, the question came up on this list (on whether "web server hosting"
would be a valid purpose for IPv6 PI), and it seem that other people had 
issues requesting IPv4 PI for customers that do "web server hosting".

So at least some clarification might be helpful, if only to help
the hostmasters (IPRAs) to cause less irritation due to different
interpretations on both sides...

Maybe we can get a few words from the NCC on how PI requests are evaluated 
in the context of "we want to run web servers in that space" today?

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090722/1a7e7b6f/attachment.html>