[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy

Hello Ondřej, list,

the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users.
There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to 
the wireless networks.

In Regards to the alliance out of some freifunk communities to obtain a 
PA-block:
I don't think it makes any difference if there are 8 more prefixes /32 
(from PA) or /48 (from PI) in the DFZ.
Count of prefixes in the DFZ would be the same for both scenarios.
Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would 
be a waste of addresses.
Besides the costs of a LIR membership won't be easy to afford event not 
for 8 communities.

@Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4.
Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured:
"IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service 
provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service 
provider's infrastructure."

That problem has already been identified. (page 8)
https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 19.06.2015 21:52, schrieb Ondřej Caletka:
> 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.
>