[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy

Dne 19.6.2015 v 13:56 Thomas Drewermann napsal(a):
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk
> Community in germany.
> They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on
> their own.
> As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used
> to lease addresses to clients/users.
> According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space.

Hello Thomas, list,

I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network
oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to
hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its
fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give
a single /64 to customer, are you?

On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots,
comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all
addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation
infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated.

> 
> Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically
> can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the
> current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.

Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if
something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI
assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table.
I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining
independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees.

What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as
a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and
at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6
addreses that could be assigned to customers.

> 
> I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be
> used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients
> are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI
> assignment e.g. via wifi.

I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI
addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation
where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really
need them, thus flodding the global routing table.

Best regards,
Ondřej Caletka
CESNET

> 
> The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address
> provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for
> usage by the connecting client/user/customer.
> 
> How do you think about that situation?
> What would be your thoughts on such a proposal?
> 
> Regards
> Thomas Drewermann
> Freifunk Rheinland e.V.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3265 bytes
Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150619/ecc5d556/attachment.p7s>