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

On 8/8/11 12:51 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 11:42, Erik Bais wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't support this policy as it stands, because it makes it too easy to
> get PI space instead of PA space.  This will cause deaggregation in the
> ipv6 DFZ.
>
> Deaggregation is a serious operational issue which gets monotonically worse
> over time.  It never improves, and 2011-02 will simply aggravate the problem.

the best solution then is to give IPv6 space to nobody, so routing tabe 
does not deagregate and grow beyond memory limits :)

Joke aside, if enterprises and mid-sized companies can get IPv6 PI 
without multihoming requirements and this means this lowers the need of 
NAT66 - I'm all for it.

If we think multihoming requirement is a speed-bump for folx requesting 
IPv6 space, remove it. Maybe we could charge more for PI that does not 
show multihoming and usual price for PI that does multihoming.

Cheers, Jan