[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

Dear Cynthia,

Thank you for raising this topic.

We are seeing more requests from organisations that want separate /48 PI 
assignments for different locations. We approve these requests if the 
policy requirements are met - primarily that their different routing 
requirements are documented.

One of the best ways to do this is through an addressing plan. While I 
can't discuss the specifics of your case on the mailing list, I can 
state that it wasn't the physical locations that made your request 
unique. Feel free to contact me offline if you would like any further 
clarification around the policy requirements as they apply to your 
situation.

It's also worth noting that if an LIR wants to request a second /29, 
they would need to provide justification in this case as well.

Of course, there's always the option to propose a policy change if the 
current policy appears too strict or in need of improvement, and I am 
always available to help people get started with this.

Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC


On 27/02/2019 11:08, Cynthia Revström wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>
> As I attempted to explain this was 3 separate uses that required 
> separate announcements.
>
> - Cynthia
>
> On 2019-02-27 11:05, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:47:04AM +0000, Krasimir Ganchev via 
>> address-policy-wg wrote:
>>> I couldn't agree more with Cynthia, policies are too strict and 
>>> require justification which doesn't allow expansion over time and is 
>>> just based on immediate needs.
>>>
>>> All that especially in the era of exhausted IPv4 is practically 
>>> unbelievable.
>>>
>>> No offense of course, just the reality.
>> This claim is just not true.
>>
>> There might be some cases where expectations and grandeur plans do not
>> match reality, and in this cases it's reasonable that the NCC is strict
>> and will not hand out a /19 to someone who can fulfill all their 
>> expected
>> needs with a /32.
>>
>> There are other cases where the NCC is asking lots of questions, and 
>> maybe
>> there are cases where the NCC is too strict.  So we need to talk 
>> about these
>> and see if it's "lack of reasonable documentation on the user side" or
>> "annoying interpretation on the NCC side".
>>
>> OTOH, a /48 for an end-user site or a /29 for an ISP is pretty huge
>> (we have not even extended our /32 to a /29 as we assume that we will
>> never manage to fill the /32) - and documented reality shows that *if*
>> you need more, you can get it today.
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>          -- APWG chair, and IPv6 user from day one, where the 
>> policies were
>>             *much* stricter than today
>
>