Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
All, I support the general idea of the proposal, but I have some questions: The proposal states that (last paragraph): "If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both." First question: Only in this last paragraph of the proposal there is mention of "PI assignment" as opposed to "IPv6 assignment". Was this done intentionally? Second question: Is it (therefore) not possible to become a LIR and just keep the PI assignment instead of asking for a IPv6 PA allocation? I can imagine that if an organisation doesn't want to have Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreements with LIRs, instead of entering into a End User Assignment Agreement with RIPE, the organisation wishes to become a LIR (same costs, more service) while wanting to keep the previously assigned PI space (and public AS number). Third question: Also, (just to be sure) as this Policy document exclusively deals with IPv6, does this policy proposal also have impact on the IPv4 PI space an organisation already has when it wants to become an LIR? With kind regards, Andries Hettema nl.kpn-bbt IP-Office KPN Internet 070 45 13398 ip-office@kpn.com
Hi, Sorry for the very late answer. On 20 Aug 2009, at 15:43, IP-Office KPN wrote:
I support the general idea of the proposal, but I have some questions:
Thank you.
The proposal states that (last paragraph): "If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both."
First question: Only in this last paragraph of the proposal there is mention of "PI assignment" as opposed to "IPv6 assignment". Was this done intentionally?
No. The text appears in the IPv6 PI assignment section of the document so only applies to assignments of this type. It does bring about functional parity with v4, but v4 policy is not changed by this policy proposal.
Second question: Is it (therefore) not possible to become a LIR and just keep the PI assignment instead of asking for a IPv6 PA allocation?
Yes, why not - if you do not make assignments to end users, and only need a /48, but you want to support the work of the ncc, then ...
Third question: Also, (just to be sure) as this Policy document exclusively deals with IPv6, does this policy proposal also have impact on the IPv4 PI space an organisation already has when it wants to become an LIR?
No change to v4 policy. Best wishes Andy
participants (2)
-
Andy Davidson -
IP-Office KPN