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

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:21:54PM +0200, Jan Tuomi wrote:
> > Conservation is not one of the primary goals for IPv6.
> > 
> > Routing table size (=aggregation) *is* - which is why the consensus of 
> > this group, some years ago, was "be restrictive on PI".
> 
> What is the difference in allocating one /48 PI-block or one /32
> PA-block from a routing table size view? there still is one route
> in both cases because I need multihoming....

Sure, and the PI policy requires "multihoming" for that reason - to
permit PI for the cases that were clearly understood at that time: if 
someone wants/needs to do BGP-based multihoming, they will consume 
a routing table slot anyway.

Now *this* discussion didn't start with "the multihoming requirement"
but with "what can I use PI for" - which is a different restriction, and
I tried to explain that these are interconnected and it is not that easy
to untangle things in a way that the end result is better than what
we have now.

> > Now, this particular problem ("datacenter business") has been showing up
> > a few times in the last 1.5 years, and in the end, it boils down to a
> > number of considerations that are NOT easily solved.
> > 
> > - the distinction between PA and PI is, conceptually, 
> > 
> >    "PA is for ISPs that want to number (their) customers" 
> > 
> >    "PI is for customers that want to number their own(!) network in an 
> >     independent way"
> 
> Should I consider myself as an ISP? I am not selling internet
> access to my customers locations, the customers is running their
> servers in my facility, in my rack, on my switches, firewalls and
> routers, they dont have physical access without me or someone from
> my staff being present.
> From my point of view, it is MY OWN network, not theirs.

Sounds like you're providing "Internet Services" to your customers - you
make sure that their web presence can be reached from "the Internet".

As I have tried to explain - this is where the distinction PA/PI came
from, and indeed, you seem to match a loose definition of "ISP" quite
well - an ISP isn't only "runs DSL lines to folks".

We know that datacenter is problematic, as the boundaries between
"this is MY NETWORK and MY SERVERS" and "this is MY NETWORK and THEIR
servers" and "this is MY NETWORK connecting to THEIR firewall, and
THEIR network behind the firewall" is floating.

> > - PI has been positioned as "cheap", so it's not a major hurdle for
> >   small "non-isp" companies that want/need independent address space
> > 
> > - PA is "expensive", because it's only given to LIRs, and all the LIRs
> >   around share the expense of having the RIPE NCC do their job
> > 
> >   --> so, if a large number of ISPs change to run their IPv6 business on 
> >   PI space, and stop paying LIR fees, all *other* LIRs have to pay *more*
> >   (the NCC's expenses pretty much stay the same, and get distributed to
> >   less paying members).  So from a fairness point of view, there's good
> >   reason to ask everybody who is running an ISP-like business to become
> >   a LIR, and pay their share, staggered by "ISP size".
> 
> But the price is the same...
> EXTRA SMALL, LIR: Sign-up Fee (? 2000) + Service Fee (? 1,300)
> EXTRA SMALL, Direct Assignment User: Administration Fee (? 2000) + Service Fee (? 1,300)

PI costs 50 EUR/year per assignment if you go through a sponsoring LIR (which
is the recommended way of doing it) in RIPE fees, plus some extra that
the sponsoring LIR is usually adding as a handling fee.

If you intend on becoming a Direct Assignment User, go for "LIR", and stop
worrying on PA vs. PI and sub-assignments.

> Is it about that? Did I make the wrong choice in not becoming a DUA directly against RIPE?

Well, if you're a hosting provider, and the question is "DUA or LIR", go
for LIR.

If the question is "PI via a local LIR" vs. "become a LIR yourself", there's
a larger monetary difference, and some argue that this is too expensive and
will drive them out of business.  We *are* listening to that, but have no
easy answer yet.

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/20110330/5ba6aaaf/attachment.bin>