[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI for profit, webhosting and route deaggregation

Hello,

> As suggested yesterday as well, increase the cost for a /48 IPv6 PI object
> from 50 Euro to a 200 or 400 euro maintenance cost per year to avoid pet
> projects at home behind a DSL line and get rid of the multi-homing
> requirement. 

I support this too.

It shouldn't be necessary to apply for a LIR membership just to be independent from your upstream provider. This text should also be added to the IPv6 policy, as in IPv4:

	"IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure."

One of our end-user's application for PI IPv6 was rejected because the IPRA considered the IP addresses of their shared hosting web servers as assignments to other end-users. Most of the websites on the internet are hosted on shared hosting providers. These companies is running hundreds of websites on the same IP address, and it's impossible to use IPv6 for these providers if their end-users must apply for their own IPv6 assignment. It also doesn't make sense if a colocation customer with 1 server has to get their own assignment because the hosting provider wants to be independent.

To make an easier transition to IPv6, we must allow hosting providers to use PI IPv6 for their hosting services. Most of them have PI IPv4 today, and don't want a PA allocation for their IPv6 needs either.

-- 
Best regards,
Vegar Løvås
Rent a Rack AS