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

Hi,

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 06:52:41PM +0200, Mark Scholten wrote:
> 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 

Where do you see the hurdle?

> - 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)

This is the "datacenter" / "hosting shop" case I mentioned, and this
definitely needs clarification what the community views as useful here.

(Note that you can't do this with IPv4 PI either, giving customers in
your colocation space a, say, /29 from your IPv4 PI range)

> - PA IPv6 address space is currently not available for us (this also
> prevents us to implement IPv6)

You *could* become a LIR...  which would make IPv6 PA space available
very easily.

> 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.

I'm not sure I understand why they wouldn't be able to use IPv6 PI...?

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/bc58d3b9/attachment.sig>