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

Hi Jasper,

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jasper Jans <Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl>wrote:

> 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
>

This is an argument what many people might support -- even me ;-) , --- but
I would also add some review period to all PI allocations. Like this:

The policy allowing Provider Independent allocation might be revoked later
on and if it is revoked then ALL PI holder not fullfilling the new policy
will be requested to return their PI address space and renumber to PA
address space within 2 years.

What do you think about this?

Thanks,

Géza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110810/9c2c7ac2/attachment.html>