[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 10:07 PM
> To: 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,
> 
> this discussion feels somewhat familiar, especially the part "we should
> remove the distinction PA/PI".  So I checked my archives, and found
> someting I wrote at the last round, in July 2009, in the context of
> "our web hosting shop cannot get IPv6 PI addresses!"...
> 
> -------------------------- quote --------------------------------------
> ------
> I think one of the focal points here is the question on whether 'giving
> a hosted web server an IP address' is 'assigning address space to end
> users'.
> 
> The boundary cases ("the customer has a virtual web presence and not
> even a dedicated IP address" and "the customer is running their own web
> farm and the ISP routes a /24 towards their firewall") are pretty clear
> - but there is lots of space for different way to do web server hosting
> in between (managed servers, rented servers, real servers, vmware
> entities, vserver/jailed virtual servers, ...)
> 
> [...]
> 
> People have argued to remove the PA/PI distinction.  I don't think that
> this is the right way (due to the fact that PA allocations necessarily
> need
> to be more liberal than PI assignments), but maybe we need to loosen up
> PI rules a bit, as in:
> 
>  "Using addresses from a PI block to number other parties' devices is
>   permitted as long as these devices are connected to the same network,
>   documentation about the usage can be presented to the RIPE NCC, and
>   full responsibility for the addresses (abuse handling etc) is done by
>   the PI holder".
> 
> 
> (After all, one of the reasons why we document end user assignments in
> a
> public database is to be able to contact a person feeling responsible
> for
> troubleshooting and abuse handling)
> 
> "same network" is important to make it crystal clear that "get a chunk
> of PI and sell off smaller bits to 3rd parties connecting at random to
> other ISPs" is not the desired intention.
> -------------------------- quote --------------------------------------
> ------
> 
> At that time, there was one voice agreeing with me, a few more
> comments,
> and then the thread sort of died.
> 
> Looking at the text today, I think it fits the "hosting provider issue"
> quite well.  It does allow loopholes for "large-scale end user access"
> ISPs (those that use IPv4 PI for single-address-end-user connections
> today), so we might need to think a bit more about the concept and the
> goals, before agreeing on specific wording.
I agree with this idea (as I think this is a great solution for the
mentioned problem and I don't see problems with this idea).

Regards, Mark
> 
> Some food for tomorrow's discussion.
> 
> 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