[ipv6-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:26:20PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> There are lots of similar examples as the NATO one. It make no sense
> at all

Not issueing PI for multihomed entities makes no sense at all, in face
of the complete lack of a full replacement. I'm still waiting for the
heads to come out of the sand, but I'm waiting since long and don't see
_any_ light at the end of the tunnel (don't anybody dare to say "shim6"
if he/she doesn't want to disqualify her/himself immediately). The folks
all having their own /32 already allocated to them and trying to limit
independent address space to "service providers" (or those who manage to
pretend being it, which seems to be easy) are still arguing for "not for
them!" paradigm - easy position with having their own dishes already
done.

Until we have a clear full replacement (that means a solution which does
NOT ignore real requirements like shim6 does) there should be a very
simple PI policy which issues a /48 or whatever to end sites at a
nominal small fee, paid directly to the RIR. An initial setup fee and a
yearly renewal fee, paid by credit card or something equally simple.
No payment => assignment withdrawn. The initial fee covering the cost of
evaluation of the request, doing the assignment and setting up the
billing account and DNS reverse. The yearly fee covering the maintenance
of the entries in the database and DNS rev NS RRset and the yearly
recurring fee invoicing/billing. Done.

Too simple, too scary, too much independence again to the endsites, eh?

I think it's ridiculous to have folks become LIR (and pretend/lie being
ISPish) just to get the PI space they need and having them pay the same
money every *real* LIR (you remember what LIR means? Local Internet
REGISTRY) which happens to open tickets with the hostmasters every now
and then (or much more often).

Setting aside my disbelieve in the FUD about the scalability problem of
real BGP multihoming (noone yet has shown that the relative amount of
multihomers does or will explode), I'm quite sure that we'd need a real
locator/ID split which is NOT shim6 but something going farther than
that. And we won't have it soon, if at all for IPv6. But keeping on
ignoring user's needs for further years and waiting for the magically
appearing 100% ideal solution is not the way forward.

My 0.02EUR

Regards,
Daniel (having renumbered his IPv6 network already three times
completely and hoping not having to do it a fourth time anytime soon,
and not being able to properly multihome like I can do in IPv4 because
I'm not a commercial ISP, nor can afford the thousands of EUR for LIR
which usually finance MUCH more than just a one-time PI assignment
and some DB slots)

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0