[members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme

On 19/02/2019, 10:10, "members-discuss on behalf of Jan Zorz - Go6" <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of jan at go6.si> wrote:

    I've heard this argument from other people also. I would expect that
    getting /32 or /29 should be easy for initial testing and also for small
    or mid-sized operators to deploy in production when they choose so.

    If big operator decides to deploy IPv6 to all their customers and can
    prove that they have for example 10 million customers that they would
    like to enable with /48 subnets - then this should be more than enough
    for RIPE NCC IPRa's to give whatever is needed to do that.

    If you can't prove that you have such a customer base and you *plan* to
    have them, then the usual bumpy and windy way of proving it applies -
    but if you *already* have users and infrastructure - why making
    deployment of IPv6 harder for operators when they decide to do it???


This is where the problem (for me at least) was,  there's a third middle state not mentioned above, nor properly covered by policy.

An operator that isn't just doing initial testing, doesn't have a current deployment to justify based on current policy,  but is deploying new infrastructure at scale.    Said operator shouldn't have to build a design to intentionally hit capacity just so as to have justification for a larger allocation.

We're perhaps a less common case with a greenfield deployment, large IPv6-only focused deployment from day one, large scale forecasts and proven track record.   We did get there in end, but it was a rather frustrating process with lots of back and forth emails via a ticketing system, conference calls, challenging and requests for commercially sensitive information around forecasts and topology deployments (without RIPE being willing to sign NDAs).   I was very close to giving up and designing around /56 PDs for customers instead of /48s.

It felt like the IPv4-conservative approach was being applied to IPv6, and that kind of defeats the purpose IMO.

-Richard

Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky Limited and Sky International AG and are used under licence.

Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075), Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) and Sky CP Limited (Registration No. 9513259) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky Limited (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD