Anno domini 2022 Gert Doering scripsit: Hey folks,

I announced too many weeks ago that a small group was looking into the IPv6 policy, as it is today, why it is what it is, and whether the underlying assumptions that the policy is based on are still valid. [...] We'll present about this next week, picking some points as starting points for "shall we do something here? if yes, what? and who?" - but this is not about *me*, but about the commounity - *you*. Anyone is free and welcome to start a discussion and work on aspects we brought up - or on other aspects.

Thanks for this and the work you put into it! I also believe some parts of the policies need some review and overhaul, and I think you identified a lot of details to think about. I'll try go provide a brain dump of some topics which resonated with me and which I ran into in the past with one of my different hats. First and foremoest, I agree with the observation that IPv6 PI space is a complicated beast and I still remember my last attempt at making it more usuable so people don't have to lie about there use cases. I fully agree with Jan's statement at the mic that we should look into this again and like Gert's suggestion to just drop the "3rd party clause" of the PI policy. In *this* case the marked might really have solved the issue and I'd be confident the issue of ISPs only giving out one IP per subscriber won't arise as those offers will be laughted at. Another commonly observed obstacle with IPv6 PI has been getting more than one /48, which also has been brought up by Max (not me :)), which I also fully agree with. If a network has a number of sites today and qualifies for n * /48 prefixes and in the foreseeable future might be able to conntect those sites (by means of DF, waves, or whatever), it does make a lot of sense to provide this organization with the aggregate for ceil(n * /48). Even if the sites don't end up being interconnected there's not much difference in prefix size and routing table usage, but less hassle for all parties involved. As a customer I recently ran into the issue that an IP access business connection came with an IPv4 /29 out of the box but no IPv6 whatsoever, not even a /64 on-link which would have totally sufficed for the use case. To get a /56 available on that link, it needed to be booked for 30€ MRC on top of the existing monthly fee, which isn't very 2020. Private customers obviously get IPv6 by default as DS-lite is used to serve their IPv4 traffic. Tackling business practices isn't really within our scope, but maybe we can have this in mind when updating BCOP documents, to "motivate" ISPs to diverge from such practices, which certainly do not help furthering IPv6 deployment. Cheers, Max -- Friends are relatives you make for yourself.