[address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?

| Most of the IPv4 PI address space allocation comes from the pre-CIDR period of time. I am pretty
| sure that all the examples hinted by Wilfried are early allocations, may be even pre-RIPE allocations.

If you are implying here that the amount of PI allocated these days vs what was allocated before makes
it so that there is hardly any impact - then yea maybe.. i do not have the numbers to support this
either way. However if this is supposed to imply that PI was mainly handed out in the old days and
these days there are other (better??) options - then I have to disagree - there are obviously many
valid reasons these days to still get IPv4 PI space under the rules that exist, and from my personal
experience none of these allocations are made to organisations with an AS or dual homing today - hence
these organisations can not get IPv6 PI to run dual-stack etc (that is what we all wanted right - run
dual-stack while you still can and do not set yourself up for difficult transition setups?).

To me it is very strange to have the next version of IP being incompatible from a policy perspective
with the previous - this is a severe problem for at least our customers to move to IPv6. All of their
reasons to run PI on IPv4 are just as valid on IPv6 however the dual-homing policy line prevents them
from making the transition.

I am all for learning from our mistakes - but we cannot deploy policy that excludes a group of people
when it comes to IPv6 that already qualified for ipv4 PI. If we really have to do the dual-homing
requirement (I'm of the opinion we don't) then at the very least make it so that the clause states
that you need to be dual-homed for any new IPv6 PI, or must already own IPv4 PI. This way you can
prevent people from getting it that do not have it yet but allow the ones that already run IPv4 PI to
get IPv6 PI.

Jasper

Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer