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

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 17:43, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> There is no real incentive to do so, as you can get a huuuuuge block of
> addresses fairly easily.

No incentive and no sane reason never stopped people from doing weird
stuff ;)


> 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).

Unless I am mistaken, a /64 PI has the same cost as a /32 PI.

That being said, I initially assumed that "differences of technical nature and
in sheer abundance" do not matter which was wrong, plain and simple.
My natural assumption was that no sub-allocation would ever be smaller
than /64, but of course this needs to be put into text.


Richard