On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:12, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
This discussion will of course be followed up on this mailing list.
My 2 cents (Gert made me post this): 1) While the problem of IPv4 will, hopefully, solve itself within the next few years, it's still import to keep it in mind, especially as the resources become more and more scarce. 2) Policies for IPv4 and IPv6 should be the same. Obviously, there are differences of technical nature and in sheer abundance, but these do not matter in the specific topic at hand. 3) Although I am in the comfortable position of being able to use PA space exclusively, if the usage of PI space has indeed changed over time, there seem to be three possible solutions: a) Force the users of said PI space to become LIRs and use PA space. b) Introduce a concept of "lesser LIRs" which is allowed to use PI space for sub-assignments. c) Continue the existing practice of accepting that there is a new, valid use for PI space and accommodate a real-world need which exists, apparently. Personally, I feel that updating the wording in the IPv4 policy to allow these sub-assignments explicitly, and not merely implicitly, makes sense. This wording could then be used for IPv6, as well. Richard