[address-policy-wg] RE: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1326 - 4 msgs

What is different when customer get PA instead of PI ? Don't you have to update the same prefix table ? Do you see any compromise between approve/deny this proposal ? let's say limited number of PI addresses for each End user ?  


Best regards
_____________________________________
Pavol Kovac 

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:00 PM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1326 - 4 msgs

Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
	address-policy-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (Elmar Germann)
   2. Re: Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (Sascha Lenz)
   3. FW: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (poty at iiat.ru)
   4. Re: Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (thabet at gmail.com)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:36:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Elmar Germann <germann at global-village.de>
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6

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.


Kind regards,
Elmar Germann.

-- 
Global Village GmbH  Tel +49 2855 9651 0     GF Marcus Faure
Mehrumer Str. 16     Fax +49 2855 9651 110   Amtsgericht Duisburg HRB9987
D-46562 Voerde       eMail info at globvill.de  Ust-Id DE180295363


--__--__--

Message: 2
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
From: Sascha Lenz <slz at baycix.de>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:47:34 +0200
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net

Hay,


Am 12.05.2011 um 22:36 schrieb Elmar Germann:

> Hello,
>=20
> 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=20
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.)

--=20
Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect



--__--__--

Message: 3
Subject: FW: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:44:42 +0400
From: <poty at iiat.ru>
To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>

Hello,
I do not support this proposal. We are speaking about real possibilities =
and real impact. The proposers doesn't know exactly the impact of the =
changes and are deaf to the other people pointing to the real troubles =
relating the grooving number of prefixes. Their na=EFve assumptions =
about cheap BGP routers show their inability to broader the mind just =
outside their small nets needs. Technical requirements should be the =
only way of making decisions.
If someone has tendency to lie - it would lie anyway - one thing or =
another.

Regards,
Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat


--__--__--

Message: 4
Reply-To: thabet at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
To: poty at iiat.ru,address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net,address-policy-wg at ripe.net
From: thabet at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:47:20 +0000

SSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIFZsYWRpc2xhdiBQb3RhcG92DQoNCg0KU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IEJsYWNrQmVy
cnmuIHNtYXJ0cGhvbmUgZnJvbSBkdQ0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJv
bTogPHBvdHlAaWlhdC5ydT4NClNlbmRlcjogYWRkcmVzcy1wb2xpY3ktd2ctYWRtaW5AcmlwZS5u
ZXQNCkRhdGU6IEZyaSwgMTMgTWF5IDIwMTEgMTI6NDQ6NDIgDQpUbzogPGFkZHJlc3MtcG9saWN5
LXdnQHJpcGUubmV0Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogRlc6IFthZGRyZXNzLXBvbGljeS13Z10gUmVtb3ZhbCBv
ZiBtdWx0aWhvbWVkIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGZvciBJUHY2DQoNCkhlbGxvLA0KSSBkbyBub3Qgc3Vw
cG9ydCB0aGlzIHByb3Bvc2FsLiBXZSBhcmUgc3BlYWtpbmcgYWJvdXQgcmVhbCBwb3NzaWJpbGl0
aWVzIGFuZCByZWFsIGltcGFjdC4gVGhlIHByb3Bvc2VycyBkb2Vzbid0IGtub3cgZXhhY3RseSB0
aGUgaW1wYWN0IG9mIHRoZSBjaGFuZ2VzIGFuZCBhcmUgZGVhZiB0byB0aGUgb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxl
IHBvaW50aW5nIHRvIHRoZSByZWFsIHRyb3VibGVzIHJlbGF0aW5nIHRoZSBncm9vdmluZyBudW1i
ZXIgb2YgcHJlZml4ZXMuIFRoZWlyIG5h73ZlIGFzc3VtcHRpb25zIGFib3V0IGNoZWFwIEJHUCBy
b3V0ZXJzIHNob3cgdGhlaXIgaW5hYmlsaXR5IHRvIGJyb2FkZXIgdGhlIG1pbmQganVzdCBvdXRz
aWRlIHRoZWlyIHNtYWxsIG5ldHMgbmVlZHMuIFRlY2huaWNhbCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgc2hvdWxk
IGJlIHRoZSBvbmx5IHdheSBvZiBtYWtpbmcgZGVjaXNpb25zLg0KSWYgc29tZW9uZSBoYXMgdGVu
ZGVuY3kgdG8gbGllIC0gaXQgd291bGQgbGllIGFueXdheSAtIG9uZSB0aGluZyBvciBhbm90aGVy
Lg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KVmxhZGlzbGF2IFBvdGFwb3YNClJ1LmlpYXQNCg0K




End of address-policy-wg Digest