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

Hi Sander,

Not exactly the same issue, but last week I was consulting a customer that
requires PI, because the type of services they offer and they have
hundreds of sites in Europe, and not all them are multihomed.

Somehow, one choice may be to become an LIR, but because not all the sites
are using the same ISP, they will need to announce /48 from the /32, not a
good way.

So the alternative is to request a PI for each site, and today, they can
only get this for those multihomed.

The other point, is that in some situations, it will be good to aggregate
all those PI (or some of them), which will depend on the RIPE NCC staff to
be able to provide contiguous /48s.

So ... should we propose to remove the multihoming barrier ?

What is the feeling of the list members ?

Regards,
Jordi






-----Mensaje original-----
De: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Responder a: <sander at steffann.nl>
Fecha: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:44:04 +0100
Para: "Yasen Simeonov  (Neterra NMT)" <ysimeonov at neterra.net>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!

>Hi Yasen,
>
>> Thanks for the replay.
>> I think this should be reevaluated!
>
>Can you give your reasons to reevaluate this? The way it currently works
>is that if you delegate addresses to your customers you must be an LIR.
>Why and how should that be changed in your opinion?
>
>>> 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?
>
>No, that is not necessary. A policy proposal that describes what you can
>do has just been accepted
>(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06).
>
>> 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 ?
>
>The problem here is that this financial barrier can not be resolved here.
>The RIPE NCC membership fee is set by the RIPE NCC General Meeting, not
>here.
>
>> 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.
>
>An ISP can still get PI addresses. You just can't delegate addresses from
>PI space to customers. You need PA space for that.
>
>- Sander
>



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.facebook.com/IPv6.now

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.