[address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA & PI space for v4/6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue May 4 21:46:58 CEST 2010
Hi, On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:35:07PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > "if people can use PI to give single IPv6 addresses to their end > > customers, we might see DSL deployments with single address + NAT, > > and this not something I want to see"...) > > Me neither. Maybe change the policy to require assigning > min /64 in conjunction with making it assignable? "Why bother making a very complicated PI policy while having a fairly simple PA policy"? On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 06:38:28PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: > well, if we like it or not, there always will be the point about "if we > can't do exactly the same thing with IPv6 as we do now with IPv4, we > don't care about IPv6 anytime soon". > > So from this p.o.v. it should be clear that both policies should be > harmoni[s|z]ed. > But is that what we want? So we should have very restrictive IPv6 polices that demand that you justify every single address used? That would be "fully harmonized". <wg chair hat off> I'd say that this is the wrong direction to go. IPv6 deserves better. </> [..] > So i would opt for the simplest answer to the question: > We tell the RIPE NCC that this is all intended as it is now, no change > needed - and see what happens next (e.g. someone coming up with a formal > PDP proposal, stating that his company (or so) desperately needs a > change here) > > Reasoning: For now it seems it is rather a problem for the NCC, what > they should tell the requesting parties, not so much a community problem > since no company/person came up with a formal PDP proposal to change > anything here. > I'm happy to rethink my position though if this discussion is going > somewhere smelling like a consensus. This is one possible result of the discussion - "the community is aware of the issue, but decides not to change anything". I think the NCC would be fine with that response, they just want to be sure we've considered our options :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20100504/cbec85d3/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA & PI space for v4/6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]