[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)

Hi Sander,

And I'll try to explain as better I can.

El 13/10/2014 11:58, Sander Steffann escribió:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Some comments to clarify the discussion:
>
>> I totally disagree. In other hand, I'll make harder the v6 requeriment to get the /22.
>
> For what purpose?  When making statements like this please explain what your underlying intentions are. We make policy for a purpose and if the purpose isn't clear then it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the solution space.

Easy. The current IPv6 deploy makes me cry like a little girl. NOBODY 
(as percentage) is deploying it in their customer/backone/whatever network.

If we want to migrate from v4 to v6, some drastic changes should be 
made. One of them, requiring the v6 to be publicly visible if you want 
to have the last /22.

That way we ensure that LIR/Network will have, 'at least', ipv6 working 
on the router.

Its sad we cant check deeper if clients/servers/etc is having v6 
conectivity but at least we can check if v6 is public in bgp.

>> How? Making the policy not only "to have" the v6 alloc, I'll require also having it with route6 and published in BGP. RIPEstat is a good tool to check if the v6 is publicly visible.
>
> IP addresses allocated/assigned do not have to be routed on 'the global internet' (for whatever value of 'global internet' you pick). Routing requirements were explicitly removed from the IPv6 policy with https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.

So please, tell me why someone will require/request public ip space if 
is not to be publicly routed on "the global internet".
And that is a real question since I saw that "IP addresses 
allocated/assigned do not have to be routed on 'the global internet" 
several times and cant understand why.

Cheers,
-- 
Daniel Baeza