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

On 8/10/11 12:24 PM, Jasper Jans wrote:
> | That would be an option, adding the requirement for Dual Homing or
> | existing IPv4 PI would seem to solve the issue - it might even
> | increase the number of v4 PI requests and speed depletion which some
> | would see as a good thing.
>
> Indeed - the backdoor into IPv6 PI is getting IPv4 PI. This is a limited
> time only kind of deal since IPv4 is nearly depleted so we know this
> change will not let too much new PI space slip in for people that not
> have it today, but will allow organisations to move forward with IPv6
> deployments that have IPv4 PI today already.

This is getting complicated. Why bonding IPv4 policy to IPv6 policy?

Independent Resources costs money - X EUR/Year.

If you are multihomed, IPv6 PI space would cost X EUR/Year
If you are not multihomed, IPv6 PI space would automatically cost X x 2 
EUR/Year.

Now suit yourself and make a decision, what's gonna be.

This would probably fix all the fears expressed here in this thread.

And in my opinion independent resources are too cheap, but that's just 
my view and out of scope of this discussion.

Cheers, Jan