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

Florian Weimer wrote:

> > It doesn't solve the problem that access providers that run on IPv4 PI
> > space can't run on IPv6 PI space. These seem to be two separate
> > issues.
> 
> Not really.  If LIRs could hand out independently routable /48 chunks of their
> PA space, then those folks wouldn't need PI space at all.

So that hits the nail right on the head. We're trying to change address policy because we don't like accepted routing policy.

This is what RFC1925 says about a construct like this:

(6)  It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving
        the problem to a different part of the overall network
        architecture) than it is to solve it.

So I'm not sure that's the right idea. If you don't like routing policy, change routing policy.

(On a semi-related note, nobody likes paying money. If for some reason policy is adopted where some ISPs can get "low cost" address space for whatever reason, that means other people end up paying more for theirs. Previous experience learns us that more policy means executing policy gets more expensive. )

Remco, no hats.


This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited.  Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW.  Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.