[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Gert, Nick & Jordi,  

I don’t think that the fear from past times is something that we should keep in this discussion these days..  

If you have a look at which speed hosters / ISP are opening up new LIR’s for the /22 IPv4 … and are able to get their own v6 /29, just because they need the v4 anyway .… I have serious doubt if someone would even consider to get a ‘cheap’  /48 PI just to game the system.  

It would have my vote to remove as much of the IPv6 PI restrictions as possible, but keep the /48 PI limit without documentation …  

The goal of aggregation is noble for the DFZ, but if you have a look at the current v6 space and what people are de-aggregating their v6 prefixes into .. you would probably have to agree with me that this discussion doesn’t apply to the real world anymore.  

The discussion of financial cost for v6 space is nothing if you look at the cost for getting v4 .. and if someone wants to do the documentation for PI space .. rather than becoming a LIR.. where you can get a /29 without any questions or documentation .. Go for it ..  

If you have that amount of customers .. I think you would be an LIR already ..  

Just have a look how certain companies are doing more specific announcements of their /32 in /48’s .. or even smaller…  

If customers want to implement v6 .. using PI space for their internal infra .. or even host a server or 200 on that /48 .. let them have fun with it..  
The reality is that is not where the pollution in the routing table will come from imho .. 

I do think that a proposal to change the PI v6 requirements should be a separate discussion and policy proposal. 

Regards,
Erik Bais 



On 08/11/2017, 17:14, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of gert at space.net> wrote:

    Hi,
    
    On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:54:42PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
    > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
    > > I don???t think reaching consensus in the PI/PA change will be so easy
    > > in the ???near future??? (considering that it may require a long
    > > implementation time), and a middle way proposal looks feasible to
    > > me.
    > 
    > but it's not a middle way: it's removing the block on sub-assigning to
    > other parties, which is the thing that distinguishes PI from PA.
    
    Which is one of the things.  Other things are "how big will that bag
    of numbers be" and "what costs are attached to it".
    
    Especially the "how big will that bag of numbers be" will certainly be
    something we'll have to discuss next, shall we decide to open up PI
    for "more liberate use" (like, will "I want to assing a million /64
    to DSL users" be a sufficient reason to get "larger than a /48"?).
    
    Consequences to all we do...
    
    Gert Doering
            -- APWG chair
    -- 
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
    
    SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279