Jasper Jans wrote:
| Most of the IPv4 PI address space allocation comes from the pre-CIDR period of time.
Well, pre-CIDR (and pre-RIR times), the notion of "PI" is pretty fuzzy, because everything given out then was sort of PI, including Class A and Class B blocks. But I guess the general understanding here is to mean the 192/8 space.
I am pretty | sure that all the examples hinted by Wilfried are early allocations, may be even pre-RIPE allocations.
If you are implying here that the amount of PI allocated these days vs what was allocated before makes it so that there is hardly any impact
Without wanting to imply anything, just providing us with real figures - iirc NCC Registration Services has given a very nice report recently (at 61 or 62? a recent NRO report?), listing the number of PI assignmenet vs the number of PA allocations, and the percentage of space given out for the 2 categories. Unfortunately, I cannot find this/those presentation/s on short notice right now. Maybe the NCC can help? Again, iirc, IPv4 PI is pretty attractive still in (some parts of) our Service Region; to my personal surprise even after implementation of 2007-01. I take that as quite some folks having pretty good reasons to request that type of addresses. Wilfried.
- then yea maybe.. i do not have the numbers to support this either way. However if this is supposed to imply that PI was mainly handed out in the old days and these days there are other (better??) options - then I have to disagree - there are obviously many valid reasons these days to still get IPv4 PI space under the rules that exist, and from my personal experience none of these allocations are made to organisations with an AS or dual homing today - hence these organisations can not get IPv6 PI to run dual-stack etc (that is what we all wanted right - run dual-stack while you still can and do not set yourself up for difficult transition setups?).
To me it is very strange to have the next version of IP being incompatible from a policy perspective with the previous - this is a severe problem for at least our customers to move to IPv6. All of their reasons to run PI on IPv4 are just as valid on IPv6 however the dual-homing policy line prevents them from making the transition.
I am all for learning from our mistakes - but we cannot deploy policy that excludes a group of people when it comes to IPv6 that already qualified for ipv4 PI. If we really have to do the dual-homing requirement (I'm of the opinion we don't) then at the very least make it so that the clause states that you need to be dual-homed for any new IPv6 PI, or must already own IPv4 PI. This way you can prevent people from getting it that do not have it yet but allow the ones that already run IPv4 PI to get IPv6 PI.
Jasper
Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer