[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting

Hi jasper,

> I agree with you on the interpretation. We are facing a similar situation where our customer is in the security business. They host several hundred alarm receivers currently on ipv4 pi space. This is all their own infrastructure and the reason for pi space is the requirement for global unique addressing on the alarm receivers since they are connected to both the Internet and many vpns. Being provider independent brings them the ability to dual home in the future without renumbering as well as switch ISP all together. However since they do not dual home at the moment under the current policy they cannot get ipv6 pi space. Pa space is not an option since over 120000 alarm senders deployed at their end customers nationally would have to be reprogrammed in case of a change in connectivity.
> 
> Would you agree with me that in this scenario the use of pi space is warranted yet strictly speaking not allowed under the current policy?

Your case is not really like ours.
Even if for your customer it would make sense to have IPv6 PI space
(IMHO), the current policy doesn't allow it since he is not currently
multihomed. It's up to this working group to make it evolve or not.

In our case, the customer is already multihomed on his IPv4 space and
they will also be dual homed for their IPv6 space. It's just a question
of interpretation of who is the ultimate owner of the IPs.

Regards,

Mathieu