[address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR

On Tue, 3 May 2011, Alex Vishnyakov wrote:

> They will rather use NAT IPv4 or PA IPv6, as Marcin Kuczera described. 
> Also I fully agree with Daniel Suchy.

I'm fine with them using NAT.

> We have now around 350 customers with PI IPv4 blocks and our customers
> decided to NOT implement IPv6 till IPv6 PI policy will not change.
> Just imagine - we have now around 350 PI IPv4 blocks and 10 PI IPv6,
> it doesn't look like a "IPv6 act now " !

Listen, I don't care about your issues. I'm looking global here. PI is a 
way to cut costs for future renumbering, for some this is a real issue and 
they'll be prepared to pay. For some it's just a "nice to have" and they 
won't use it, and then we won't have to carry their PI in the DFZ.

> So, during last year no one user of PI IPv4 became a LIR. They simply 
> ignore it. So if we will not change the IPv6 policy, these customers 
> will not implement IPv6 in their networks, or will implement it with 
> using of PA IPv6 addresses of LIR, but routing table will still growth.

No, because people who sub-delegate from /32 PA space won't get their 
routes spread, just like the /24 situation for IPv4.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se