[address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Hi Max,

Thanks for your inputs.

Responding below in-line.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Maximilian Wilhelm <max at rfc2324.org>
Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 2:38
Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

    Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
    
    Hi,
    
    > PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.
    
    They are not.
    
Please, enumerate what are the differences, so we can check one by one.

    > There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6.
    
    Not true.

Sorry, can you point me to the RFC that points to that assertion?

    
    PI and PA are sliced from different pools which may have (I didn't evaluate
    that by myself yet) different routing policies in the DFZ. At least
    I've seen filters or BCOPs for PA space differ from PI space in the
    means of what prefix lengths to accept.

If you look into my presentation you will see that I've already thought about that, so the NCC can continue with the same operational practices as per today:

" Actual IPv6 PI assignments are made from a different block. Even if it is an operational NCC issues, I believe it still makes sense for the NCC to keep that structure (a block for ISPs with /32 and bigger allocations) and another block for /48 and bigger allocations (may be up to /33 for organizations/end-sites). Also keep using sparse allocation for both, and allow, while possible that further allocations are made from an adjacent address block."

    
    > As I already explained before, the same way the AGM created the end-user contract and the corresponding fee, they should be a new fee structure within the LIR contract, for those that have one of few /48s instead of /32 or /29, etc.
    
    And there you are mixing GM and AP-WG again. This is neither a topic
    for this WG, nor do I think that there would be any possible
    consensus about a change in charging schema.

I know, but BOTH need to be worked somehow with some parallelism. I'm going to say this once more: We didn't have the end-user contract before I proposed the IPv6 PI, then the board and the AGM did the rest. So there is not any issue about repeating that.

    
    And basicly I'm with some other here:
    
    What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem
    to be it.

For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing work whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably the most objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), neither I plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to me". I only had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I started playing with IPv6.

Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When anybody submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start with this kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not really smart.

So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing?

Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the overall discussion.

    
    Best
    Max
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.