[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

Hello,

I do see it differently. PI address space is easy to use, however, this
allocation mechanism does not scale. Therefore was invented CIDR and PA
allocation, if you do remember...

I do not want to say that there is no room for exceptional cases and PI
allocations.

However, these must be limited in numbers (of allocations) and perhaps even
in time. (you might receive it just for a couple of years.) PI allocation
is not a privilage which will be inherited in time...


When I checked the RIPE website and learned that all the working group
chairs will decide weather the 2011-02 policy proposal got concensus I was
happy.

 I still think that it would be dangerous to "release the djin" from the
bottle, without any capability to control "the djin" in the future.

I also recommend to study http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4984.txt.

I do not object to allow a few exceptional PI allocations, however, a well
defined and understandable safeguarding limit should be implemented
immediately. Later it could be too late.

My proposal was and is to include immediately in 2011-2: If the number of
allocated IPv6 PI slots reaches the number of LIRs in the region then the
PI allocation should be stopped and the PI allocation policy must be
reviewed.

The number of LIRs is a sociological-political term and not a technical
one, but at least clearly understandable by politicians and managers, and
it is reasonably not too high not too low.

AND this way the same rule could be applied in all RIRs. Applying the same
rule everywhere I consider as a very important aspect. The other RIRs could
easily accept the same.

Anyhow, the number of entries in the global routing tables is just a global
issue. Any related policy should be made at global level, and a faire
manner.

Best,

Géza
.





On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:10 AM, DI. Thomas Schallar
<t.schallar at avalon.at>wrote:

> **
> Hello!
>
> Turchanyi Geza schrieb am 07.11.2011 10:02:
>
> nothing stops th IPv4 PI owners to use IPv6 PA....
>
>
> Nothing stops anybody of using PA, neither in IPv4 nor in v6. That's not
> the question.
>
> But any reasons, why somebody wants/needs IPv4 PI space will usually fully
> apply to IPv6 also. It would seem stupid to me, to have IPv4 ("the past")
> as PI but IPv6 ("the future") as PA. That won't make sense. What changed
> between my v4 PI application and my v6 PI application? If I won't need PI
> on v6 any more, I probably won't need it on v4 any longer.
>
> Siple question: do I need my machines to have provider independend IP
> addresses or not? If yes, then I need *ANY* address (IPv4, IPv6,
> IPvSomething) to be PI and not PA.
>
> So, if somebody already has IPv4 PI space, he/she should more or less
> automatically receive v6 PI under the same conditions as for v4. He/she
> just has to reason, why some default /48 won't be enough. Thats my opinion.
>
> regards,
> Thomas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111107/4de6d763/attachment.html>