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

> Listen, I don't care about your issues. I'm looking global here.
It's your mistake that you don't care, because it's not just my issue
- I can bring here to this discussion more then 1000 ISPs from Russia
and Ukraine, who are using PIs IPv4 now and want to move to IPv6
technology, but cannot, because of the policy and people like you, and
then it will become very quickly a global issue. Or 1000 of ISPs is
still a small number for you ? It's more than million potential IPv6
users, content servers etc.


best regards,
Alex Vishnyakov



On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 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
>