Hi, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations
Dear Colleagues
The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has changed.
We have published the new version today, as a result the discussion period for this proposal has been extended until 19 June 2007. [...]
for starters: the link to Version 2.0 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01_v2.pdf ("Submission date: ..Previous versions v1.0 and v2.0 are available as PDF") does not work. Some webmaster@RIPE might want to fix this :-) - Then again, i'm a little puzzled about the most recent(?) changes. I wonder if i missed something, or if the proposal finally got completely useless, trying to find a consensus. Why do we concentrate on "multihoming" now as a requirement for PI-addresses? That's not what "Provider Independent" means to me, even if this is the most likely reason for such a request. What about those who just want a portable block, no renumbering? Why include some routing-policy in an address-policy again? Isn't it enough that the autonomous system request policy already requires >=2 peers? What does that have to do with numbering in the first place? Why isn't the only real thing we need, a contractual relationship of some kind a and small recurring fee good enough? Why other artificial barriers? THERE IS NO ROUTING TABLE PROBLEM. (you might shoot me if i'm proven wrong in 20years) . o O(X-No-Archive: Yes :-}) Simple IPv6 PI Assignment policy: - Being an end-site, not (sub-)assigning address-space to third parties - End-site explicitely states that PI addresses are desired for this assignment and that they are aware of possible the impact of PI vs. PA addresses - PI request MUST be approved by the RIPE NCC, not by a LIR - Maintaining a standardised contractual relationship with an active RIPE LIR or the RIPE NCC directely for the lifetime of the assignment - A recurring fee of 100EUR/y is charged from the RIPE NCC directely or via the handling LIR - RIPE NCC can revoke the assigment if the holder fails to pay the recurring fee within 6 months after the payment is due or is getting otherwise unresponsive - The assignment is at least a /48 from a dedicated supernet-block which clearly identifies it as Provider Independent Prefix - A shorter prefix may be assigned if the end-site provides a network plan and possible contracts with suppliers that hint that a /48 prefix might not contain enough subnets for the planned lifetime of the assignment. The same applies for subsequent assignments to the same end-site. [Actually, PI and PA requirement should just be the same here, but the PA policy isn't really stateing anything clear yet either] - A reservation for a growth up to a /44 is usually considered ..then adapt that to IPv4 PI, too, and we're done/done. ==> PA is still easy and cheap, PI is more hassle and a more expensive so it doesn't get the "default" - and we have some way to get it back to the free pool if it goes zombie, perfect. (DISCLAIMER: That is over-simplified; i'm aware of that - for example - we can't put "100EUR/y" in the policy itself) For the records: i don't really support the current 2006-01 draft in this incarnation. It doesn't really fit anymore. Main reason: Limitation to "multihoming". (I never would have thought that i object to a IPv6 PI policy until today...) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================