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

Hi,

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:35:07PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Gert Doering 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"...)
> 
> Me neither. Maybe change the policy to require assigning
> min /64 in conjunction with making it assignable?

"Why bother making a very complicated PI policy while having a fairly
simple PA policy"?

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 06:38:28PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> 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?

So we should have very restrictive IPv6 polices that demand that you
justify every single address used?  That would be "fully harmonized".

<wg chair hat off>
I'd say that this is the wrong direction to go.  IPv6 deserves better.
</>

[..]
> 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.

This is one possible result of the discussion - "the community is aware
of the issue, but decides not to change anything".  I think the NCC would
be fine with that response, they just want to be sure we've considered
our options :-)

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20100504/cbec85d3/attachment.sig>