<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi Andrzej & Turchanyi, <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>That is a difference in that respect between IPv4 and IPv6. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>End-customers that request IPv4 PI might find themselves after a while in a situation where the initial request allocation isn’t big enough and they can and will request another prefix. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>For IPv6 that isn’t likely and I’ve heard that some people are a bit concerned about this. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>One of the things we might want to put into the IPv6 PI limitations is that an end-customer can only request a single IPv6 PI Prefix and to a maximum of a certain size. ( say a /34 )<o:p></o:p>Anything beyond that should be considered LIR sized and the end-customer should become a LIR and turn in their PI prefix. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p>Erik Bais<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Turchanyi Geza Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 5:41 AM To: Andrzej Dopiera�a Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Hello Andrzej, Good point. You said that some ISPs are using IPv4 PI address space just because they asked it in their very small ISP status, as being pre-LIR. It would have been much better to change back these addresses to PA already long time. Is there anybody who can suggest a cleaning policy? Of course, vleaning is very difficult whan almost all IPv4 address space have gone... ;-(( Anyhow, the danger og creating too many routing table entries by allocating Provider Independent (IPv6) addresses is still exist and should not be overlooked. Best, G�za <o:p></o:p><div>2011/8/18 Andrzej Dopiera�a <<a href="mailto:undefine@aramin.net">undefine@aramin.net</a>><o:p></o:p>W dniu 18.08.2011 23:42, Turchanyi Geza pisze:<o:p></o:p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><o:p> </o:p>Second point: if ALL IPv4 PI holder would request IPv6 PI then you might expect another 17K prefixes in the routing table just from the RIPE Region! And this is just the start!<o:p></o:p></blockquote></div>Most ipv4 PI holders have more than one prefix - when first was not enought - they get another. Few ISP in poland get 3-4 prefixes when they weren't LIR. For ipv6 one prefix is always enought - so 17k is much to much :) Regards, Andrzej <o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=1 width="100%" noshade style='color:#A0A0A0' align=center></div>No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3843 - Release Date: 08/18/11<o:p></o:p></div></div></body></html>