[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

Hi all,

I think multi-homing requirement is a good disincentive to get a PI space purely for portability and carrier independence reasons. If this change goes ahead everyone can simply go for PI and this is likely to have route aggregation utilized less and less. I don't want to start another "millions of routes vs router memory discussion" by any means however I believe we should encourage aggregation whenever possible for practical reasons.

Reading recent postings;

1. End-users making false multi-homing declarations to get PI. I think removing requirement is not the solution. Another option is to ask for an evidence to ensure there is a good justification for PI use.

2. Sending end-users to competitor? Why should this happen? I would expect an ISP to be able to offer direct feeds from different providers (this is an actual requirement if they would like to offer highly available services anyhow).

3. End-users paying for LIR to just to get PI space; again if there is a problem with LIR requirements justification, or RIPE membership is being used for a purpose which has not been intended for, removing multi-homing requirement is not the solution. We should rather look into relevant policies to ensure end-users become LIR when they actually need to further assign IPs to their customers.

My recommendation is to keep RIPE-512 as it is.

Kind regards,

Cagri Yucel

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais
Sent: 06 August 2011 11:43
To: 'DI. Thomas Schallar'; 'RIPE Address Policy Working Group'
Cc: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

Hi Thomas, 

A quick update on the status of 2011-02 policy. 

I spoke with the AP-WG-chair last week and the decision is that there will be an extended review period to give people the time to ask questions if needed on the proposal. 

So to everyone on the list, let's hear it.

I've done a presentation on RIPE62 on the proposal for those not familiar with 2011-02 and you can find the PPT here : 
http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/171-2011-02_ripe62.ppt  

You can read the policy proposal itself here:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 

In short, the policy proposal is to remove the multi-homing requirement for PI IPv6. 
Currently, companies can become a LIR and get IPv6, with no multi-home requirement, same with requesting IPv4 PI. 
And companies that don't want to or (legally) can't become a LIR but do want to have their own IPv6 addresses are required to be multi-homed. 

The only change in text in the RIPE-512 is: 

Remove the line: 

a) demonstrate that it will be multihomed 

For those that agree with the policy and everything is clear, express your support on the AP-WG-mailing list your support. 

Kind regards,
Erik Bais
Co-author of 2011-02



This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com


This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com

The information in this internet email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please contact Adapt Group, London, 020 3009 3300.

Adapt, Adapt Managed Services and Centric Telecom are all trading names of operating companies wholly owned by Adapt Group Limited (Company No. 05275131) which is registered in England and Wales. Its registered office is 35 New Broad Street, London, EC2M 1NH.