Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
My similar request was rejected for the same reasons. Although I did not get a proposal to sub-allocate PA address space from my allocation and deaggreage it over BGP, as Mathieu got, but let's assume that I would get such proposal if I asked for it. What puzzles me, what is the meaning of that action? Let's check the options: 1. They become LIR, they got their allocation - result: +1 prefix i global routing table. 2. They gets PA suballocation from other LIR and deaggreate it - result +1 prefix in global routing table. 3. They gets PI address space - +1 prefix in global routing table. As can be clearly seen above, global routing table growth is not an issue here, since IPRA suggests to deaggregate PA sub-allocations. So, what is an issue here, beacuse I have a strange feeling that only issue are $$ lost by certain RIR due to certain companies refusing to become LIR?! Regards -- Adrian
Hi Adrian,
As can be clearly seen above, global routing table growth is not an issue here, since IPRA suggests to deaggregate PA sub-allocations. So, what is an issue here, beacuse I have a strange feeling that only issue are $$ lost by certain RIR due to certain companies refusing to become LIR?!
My point exactly. It looks like the current policy discriminates on money instead of the suggested routing table growth. If a company decides to buy their way into the community, by becoming a LIR, nobody cares anymore about the routing table growth. That means that the current policy isn't working in the interest of IPv6 adoption as each PI v6 end-user should have a multi-homed environment. And I know enough companies that have no intention of using PI for that specific reason yet. They want to have portable globally unique IP space with the option to grow into a situation in the future to multi-home or at least have the option to change ISP's without having to renumber their complete infrastructure. Having said this, the current requirement (multi-homing) is a way to avoid pet IT projects. I'm currently in the process of writing a policy change document on the policy RIPE-512 that would remove the multi-homing requirement and suggests an increase of the PI IPv6 cost to 250 euro per yearly maintenance fee for the LIR. The increased cost for the LIR for a PI IPv6 prefix, should have a similar effect. The increased cost isn't something that the RIPE community can decide on, that has to go through the AGM meeting (voted by LIR Members). However by suggesting this within the policy we can get this on the agenda. Erik Bais
Having said this, the current requirement (multi-homing) is a way to avoid pet IT projects.
I'm currently in the process of writing a policy change document on the policy RIPE-512 that would remove the multi-homing requirement and suggests an increase of the PI IPv6 cost to 250 euro per yearly maintenance fee for the LIR. The increased cost for the LIR for a PI IPv6 prefix, should have a similar effect.
It's fine, but it will not fix the problem of hosting companies that do not want to become LIR (mainly for financial reasons) just to get their own IPv6 address space. We have to realize that the transition to IPv6 depends on content availability. As long as hosting companies will have impeded access to something as basic as IP addresses, we can forget about transition at all. Regards -- Adrian
participants (2)
-
Adrian Czapek -
Erik Bais