This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Mar 30 13:14:09 CEST 2011
Hi, On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:54:55AM +0200, Jan Tuomi wrote: > So what this means is that if a customer puts their server in my facility I am sub-allocating? Yes. > To sub-allocate I have to be an LIR and request an own PA-space? Yes. As the definition of PI is "this is for you, and for you alone". (See the other long mail I've sent why this is not such a trivial matter) > For each customer I have to assign their own /64 and register it in the ripe-database? You have to document it in a way that you can show the documentation to the RIPE IPRAs, but it does not have to be in the RIPE-DB (for IPv6). Whether you assign a /64 or a /60 (think "customer with a firewall and a load balancer and a backend network for the database") is a matter of local taste. If you run multiple customers in a shared network, you can of course give every customer just a single IPv6 address (not going into technicalities on cross-customer protection here). > Setting up an SSL-webhost is also sub-allocating? This is very grey area. Technically, it's "giving an address to a 3rd party", but personally I'd see this is as "it's still the same machine under *your* control". But we already know that datacenter has all the range from "very obviously *not* sub-allocation" to "very obviously this *is* sub-allocation", and as such, distinction between "what is OK" and "what is not" is tricky at best. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3583 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110330/0873b34c/attachment.bin>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]