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

On 2/15/11 6:04 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> No. This all sounds like their own infrastructure/network/equipment. That they run software for customers, and that they choose a certain numbering plan shouldn't make a difference here. When they provide network services to their customer it starts to become more complicated, but this doesn't sound like a problem for IPv6 PI space to me. (based on the given information of course. I'm not trying to tell an IPRA what to do... They might have based their evaluation on different information)
> 
> But the way you describe it it does not sound like they assign address space to other organizations. It sounds like they assign address space to parts of their own server farm.
> 
> But this is my personal interpretation of the current policy. If someone disagrees with this, please speak up!

The request finally got rejected because the IPRA considered that this
was a sub-allocation. They encouraged our customer to become a LIR
(which they clearly don't want to) or get a PA from us and then
deaggregate it over BGP (which we clearly don't want to).
If this community wants IPv6 to be more deployed, we really need to have
this policy evolved.


Mathieu