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

Hi,
I'm new to the list but would like to comment on this subject.

I'm also trying to receive IPv6 PI for a webhosting customer of us which
seems to be a big problem.

I do not understand why everyone claims that 'the routing table growth' is
the reason not to allow too much IPv6 PI.
Those currently having IPv4 PI would of course require IPv6 PI because they
still want to be indepentent. If they need to be a LIR to get IPv6 PA the
problem is not solved for the routing-table issue. A prefix is still entered
into the same global routing-table.

I would suggest changing the IPv6 PI policy to make it more clear for
hosting/isp company's to get IPv6 PI by enforcing that the equipment on
which the IPv6 addresses are installed in rooms accessible by that company.
Multi-homing is a good reason also. I'm not sure if we should delete that
reason. This makes the company more aware that they are really independend.

This suggestion solves two things:
- large broadband ISP's with CPE in office-building, homes etc do not fit
into this policy. The equipment is behind other company's doors. This
enforces these company's to assign block to their customers from PA space as
it was meant to be.
- small ISP's/hosting company's with a few racks installed at one ore more
DC's (which we talk about in this postings) do fit into this policy and will
be independend to their internet suppliers. Of course, they should request
another PI (or get assigned-PA from a LIR) for their customers which buy
dedicated racks from them and receiving their own key to the lock. This is
exactly what we would like to see it.

What do other people on the list think about this?

regards, Igor Ybema
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110216/8701d5ce/attachment.html>