<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24"> <TITLE>RE: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY>  >Well, the question came up on this list (on whether "web server hosting" >would be a valid purpose for IPv6 PI), and it seem that other people had >issues requesting IPv4 PI for customers that do "web server hosting". Sure, I mean the way I see it, it isn't an allocation to an end user, as the assignment holder yourself you are allowing the customer to use your infrastructure addresses and as such you have full responsibility for them. Since we don't live in a (well) adopted RFC2616/RFC3546 world, each customer with an SSL cert needs to use one of your addresses for this purpose, this to me is a valid reason for needing an assignment of $size based on your usage expectations and growth model. Would like to think that I have been involved in numerous PI applications over the years (even recently) where this has been used as a justification and not a single IPRA has had an objection when this is stated clearly and shown to be the case. I think I would like to see the original application wording. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited <A HREF="http://www.clara.net">http://www.clara.net</A> -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [<A HREF="mailto:gert@space.net">mailto:gert@space.net</A>] Sent: Wed 7/22/2009 10:16 To: David Freedman Cc: Gert Doering; Dmitry Kiselev; Remco van Mook; Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space) Hi, On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:09:32AM +0100, David Freedman wrote: > Agree, i've always treated such requests from PI Applicants as valid "infrastructure" purpose, > NCC have always agreed, surely this is a non-issue? Well, the question came up on this list (on whether "web server hosting" would be a valid purpose for IPv6 PI), and it seem that other people had issues requesting IPv4 PI for customers that do "web server hosting". So at least some clarification might be helpful, if only to help the hostmasters (IPRAs) to cause less irritation due to different interpretations on both sides... Maybe we can get a few words from the NCC on how PI requests are evaluated in the context of "we want to run web servers in that space" today? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 </BODY> </HTML>