Hay, Am 12.05.2011 um 22:36 schrieb Elmar Germann:

Hello,

we do not support this policy. Removing the requirement for multihomed announcements would simply result in more unnecessary PI assignments which will increase the prefix table. We were already asked from several customers for new PI assignments just to draw down the work in case of an ISP change. PI address space should always be bound to technical requirements so that only end users with real requirements are able to request an assignment. I agree that there's currently a discriminating between IPv6 PA und PI address space, but the conculsion should be changeing the policy for the PA address space and not offering PI address space without technical requirements.

that might be a rather shortsighted and possibly dangerous view on the matter. Because instead of just getting a PI prefix which you as clueful ISP will inject in the DFZ, this just leads to most of them asking for a happy-meal including an ASN and you have to deal with another unmaintained and possibly unstable AS in the DFZ because they just pay a consultant once to set up BGP on their router and the Tunnel to he.net as a 2nd Upstream for free and never care about it anymore. Or worse, they do it themselves with help from their favorite search-engine *shudder*. ...just my 0.01 EUR And yes i don't understand the whining about the requirement anyways. It's easy to circumvent. So it's not at all doing anything good at all. (I indeed support the proposal for various non-technical reasons. If things with PI vs. PA might change anyways in the foreseeable future, this IPv4 vs. IPv6 PI policy distinction is doing nothing but hinder the desperately needed widespread IPv6 deployment at the very moment. One has to set the right priorities here.) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect