[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:08:06AM +0200, Joao Damas wrote:
> 
> On 30 Mar 2011, at 10:43, Pierre-Yves Maunier wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:25:27AM +0200, Jan Tuomi wrote:
> >> 
> >> So what should I do? What are my options?
> >> 
> >> // Janne
> >> 
> > 
> > If you wand multihomed IPv6 and assign blocks to your customers, become a LIR and get a /32.
> > 
> > ....
> > I helped some of them to become LIR, they got their /21 PA IPv4 and their /32 PA IPv6.
> 
> 
> this is really strange and weird. I have always thought that RIPE policies aimed at good address stewardship (so far this has been linked to conservation, under IPv4) and some consideration to route table size contention (promote aggregation).
> 
> Responses like this over the last weeks seem to indicate that RIPE NCC's business practices seem to taking over as a more important consideration ("you can't get a /48 if that's all you need and it makes sense, but if you pay the RIPE NCC you can get a /32 and some scarce IPv4 bundled in to boot").
> 
> If I were a regulator not intimately involved in RIPE's doings, I sure would be raising an eyebrow, or both.
> 
> Would it be time to revisit the coherency of this whole thing as a whole?
> 
> Joao

I agree with you but on my side, I only help customers to become LIR when they plan to have a good usage of their IPS.

For example :  I definitly won't help any customer to have a /21 PA based only on their multihoming needs and if they can only justify only a /27.

I agree again, it's weird. It's not possible to have a /24 PI for your own needs if you can only justify a /27 but you can get a /21 PA becoming a LIR.


-- 
Pierre-Yves Maunier
AS8218 IP/Project Engineer
pymaunier at neotelecoms.com

Neotelecoms
21 rue La Boétie, 75008 Paris, France