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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:43 PM
> To: Richard Hartmann
> Cc: Gert Doering; Carsten Schiefner; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on
> IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 05:34:50PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 17:22, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> > > "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"...)
> >
> > What provisions are in place that would stop anyone from doing the
> > same with PA space? What stops anyone from implementing them for both
> > IPv6 PA & PI?
> 
> There is no real incentive to do so, as you can get a huuuuuge block of
> addresses fairly easily.
> 
> The incentive to do this with PI is "save on the costs" - and then,
> since the PI policy doesn't permit you to give address blocks from the
> PI space to your access customers, the consequence would be "if you can
> only give a single IPv6 address to the customers, that's all the
> customer is going to get" (and the blame will be pointed to the RIPE
> NCC).
> 
> There be dragons - consider well what your message to the "large-scale
> access providers" is supposed to be, and what the implications might
> be.
> 
> (There's more dragons, and babies & bathwater as well - make sure that
> a policy that takes into account the large-scale access providers
> doesn't break things for web hosting shops...  and these seem to be
> more our problem right now)

The current options we have to implement IPv6 prevent us from implementing
it. There are multiple problems we see currently:
- We probably won't get PI IPv6 space (and renumbering if we move to another
network will be a lot of work, this is a problem for us)
- With IPv6 we would like to offer a client (collocation) at least a /112
(with PI this isn't allowed if I'm correctly informed)
- PA IPv6 address space is currently not available for us (this also
prevents us to implement IPv6)

We also know some networks (with AS number) that currently use IPv4 PI and
don't are a LIR (and don't use IPv4 PA). They also need a solution for the
mentioned problems before they could implement IPv6.

How do you look to this problem?

Regards, Mark

> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  150584
> 
> 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