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

Jasper Jans wrote:
> | Most of the IPv4 PI address space allocation comes from the pre-CIDR period of time.

Well, pre-CIDR (and pre-RIR times), the notion of "PI" is pretty fuzzy, because
everything given out then was sort of PI, including Class A and Class B blocks.

But I guess the general understanding here is to mean the 192/8 space.

> 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

Without wanting to imply anything, just providing us with real figures -

iirc NCC Registration Services has given a very nice report recently (at 61
or 62? a recent NRO report?), listing the number of PI assignmenet vs the number
of PA allocations, and the percentage of space given out for the 2 categories.

Unfortunately, I cannot find this/those presentation/s on short notice right now.
Maybe the NCC can help?

Again, iirc, IPv4 PI is pretty attractive still in (some parts of) our Service
Region; to my personal surprise even after implementation of 2007-01. I take that
as quite some folks having pretty good reasons to request that type of addresses.

Wilfried.

> - 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
> 
> 
>