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

Hi Erik,

2011/8/19 Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com>

> Hi Andrzej & Turchanyi, ****
>
> ** **
>
> That is a difference in that respect between IPv4 and IPv6. ****
>
> ** **
>
> End-customers that request IPv4 PI might find themselves after a while in a
> situation where the initial request allocation isn't big enough and they can
> and will request another prefix.
>

It would have been better and still would be better even in that case to use
only one prefix and return the original one to the RIR.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> For IPv6 that isn't likely and I've heard that some people are a bit
> concerned about this. ****
>
> ** **
>
> One of the things we might want to put into the IPv6 PI limitations is that
> an end-customer can only request a single IPv6 PI Prefix and to a maximum of
> a certain size. ( say a /34 )
>

The example (/34) given is very fare from that I would support. If an end
user needmore than a /48 the and user should provide very detailed plan of
its network. (For a home network /60 tipically more than enough).

Any organization that might need a /40 (or more) AND PI address space,
should become a LIR and contribute in the normal way to the internet address
administration costs, I think.

****
>
> Anything beyond that should be considered LIR sized and the end-customer
> should become a LIR and turn in their PI prefix. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Erik Bais****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:
> address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Turchanyi Geza
> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 5:41 AM
> *To:* Andrzej Dopierała
> *Cc:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?****
>
> ** **
>
> Hello Andrzej,
>
> Good point. You said that some ISPs are using IPv4 PI address space just
> because they asked it in their very small ISP status, as being pre-LIR.
>
> It would have been much better to change back these addresses to PA already
> long time.
>
> Is there anybody who can suggest a cleaning policy? Of course, vleaning is
> very difficult whan almost all IPv4 address space have gone... ;-((
>
> Anyhow, the danger og creating too many routing table entries by allocating
> Provider Independent (IPv6) addresses is still exist and should not be
> overlooked.
>
> Best,
>
> Géza
>
> ****
>
> 2011/8/18 Andrzej Dopierała <undefine at aramin.net>****
>
> W dniu 18.08.2011 23:42, Turchanyi Geza pisze:****
>
> ** **
>
> Second point: if ALL IPv4 PI holder would request IPv6 PI then you might
> expect another 17K prefixes in the routing table just from the RIPE Region!
> And this is just the start!****
>
> Most ipv4 PI holders have more than one prefix - when first was not enought
> - they get another. Few ISP in poland get 3-4 prefixes when they weren't
> LIR.
>
> For ipv6 one prefix is always enought - so 17k is much to much :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrzej
>
> ****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3843 - Release Date: 08/18/11***
> *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110819/a279dc2d/attachment.html>