[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!

We are facing a different issue but would also like a reevaluation of the policy.

We have a fair amount of customers that have IPv4 PI space for valid reasons. The
IPv6 PI policy calls for demonstrated multihoming - which if we read it correctly
means that if these customers want to migrate from IPv4 to IPv6 all of a sudden
they will require an ASN as well as a second transit provider. We would like to
see a provision in the policy that allows IPv4 to IPv6 migrations with regards to
PI space - say if you qualified for IPv4 PI space - irrespective of what the rules
are for IPv6 PI space - you will always qualify for IPv6 PI space. This will allow
stricter rules for new applications while also easing the migration from v4 to v6.

Jasper


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vegar Løvås
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:08 PM
To: Yasen Simeonov(Neterra NMT)
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!

Hello,

I also thinks this policy should be reevaluated.

We are experiencing almost the same issue, but more related to the "your
infrastructure" part. One of our customers is a hosting company, and
their application got rejected because they wanted to use the addresses
for their shared hosting service.

This is not how it should be, as a shared hosting server has 1 IP
address shared among all of the customers. Why would each customer need
it's own allocation?

--
Best regards,
Vegar Løvås
Rent a Rack AS

On 14.02.2011 13:59, Yasen Simeonov(Neterra NMT) wrote:
> Thanks for the replay.
> I think this should be reevaluated!
>
> On 14/02/2011 12:43, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> With IPv6 you don't give every user one IP address (which would be
>> your infrastructure), but you usually assign them a block of
>> addresses. For making assignments to end-users you need a PA block.
>> And: there is no 'your infrastructure' rule for IPv6. That is only
>> defined for IPv4.
> Is that mean that the ISPs should make an entry in the RIPE's database
> for each household to which gives access to the Internet?
>
>
> Here is reveal the danger we as LIR can not give PI IPv6 to this ISP,
> but some of our competitors /another LIR/
> to conceal the fact that they will be given to end customers /
> households / and the ISP will receive this resource.
>
> How would you advise a small ISP in a small rural area which has no
> financial ability to pay the fee for becoming LIR,
> to be independent from the upstream provider ?
>
> What would be the reason a company that deals with Internet delivery can
> not get a PI IPv6 resources, but a company which is engaged in other
> activity can get it.
>
> Please share your opinion.
>
>




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