[address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:12, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> This discussion will of course be followed up on this mailing list.

My 2 cents (Gert made me post this):

1) While the problem of IPv4 will, hopefully, solve itself within the
next few years, it's still import to keep it in mind, especially as the
resources become more and more scarce.

2) Policies for IPv4 and IPv6 should be the same. Obviously, there are
differences of technical nature and in sheer abundance, but these do not
matter in the specific topic at hand.

3) Although I am in the comfortable position of being able to use PA
space exclusively, if the usage of PI space has indeed changed over
time, there seem to be three possible solutions:

  a) Force the users of said PI space to become LIRs and use PA space.

  b) Introduce a concept of "lesser LIRs" which is allowed to use PI
  space for sub-assignments.

  c) Continue the existing practice of accepting that there is a new,
  valid use for PI space and accommodate a real-world need which
  exists, apparently.


Personally, I feel that updating the wording in the IPv4 policy to allow
these sub-assignments explicitly, and not merely implicitly, makes
sense. This wording could then be used for IPv6, as well.


Richard