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

Hay,

Am 04.05.2010 17:22, schrieb Gert Doering:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:58:52PM +0200, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>> Oh, and yes: I am in favour of a v4/v6 harmonisation, too.
>
> Why?

well, if we like it or not, there always will be the point about "if we 
can't do exactly the same thing with IPv6 as we do now with IPv4, we 
don't care about IPv6 anytime soon".

So from this p.o.v. it should be clear that both policies should be 
harmoni[s|z]ed.
But is that what we want?

>
> (Half of it is because it's easier to judge the outcome of a discussion
> if there are specific arguments for or against something - and the
> other half of it is because I'm playing the devil's advocate, and claim
> that we might not want IPv6 to be the same as IPv4...  e.g. as in
> "if people can use PI to give single IPv6 addresses to their end
> customers, we might see DSL deployments with single address + NAT,
> and this not something I want to see"...)

That's the difference between good intentions and good in general.
It just might not work that way, at least not anytime soon.

For the actual question:

I have no real meaning about it; i see the problems but don't know what 
the best solution might be.

So i would opt for the simplest answer to the question:
We tell the RIPE NCC that this is all intended as it is now, no change 
needed - and see what happens next (e.g. someone coming up with a formal 
PDP proposal, stating that his company (or so) desperately needs a 
change here)

Reasoning: For now it seems it is rather a problem for the NCC, what 
they should tell the requesting parties, not so much a community problem 
since no company/person came up with a formal PDP proposal to change 
anything here.
I'm happy to rethink my position though if this discussion is going 
somewhere smelling like a consensus.

-- 
=====================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE       slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Design & Operations                                       =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut               * PGP public Key on demand *  =
=====================================================================