Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost]

Hi Jordi,

On 29 May 2007, at 11:18pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

[...]

> > The new text has the following statement:
> >
> >     "PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations:
> >      The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger
> >      assignment (shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented
> >      and justified."
> >
> > I am not sure what documentation and justification is required to
> > qualify for a prefix shorter than a /48. What do I need to show the
> > RIPE NCC before they would be able to assign my network a /47?
> I just tried to keep it simple. I expect the Staff will use the same
> criteria they use today for providing, for example, a /31 instead  
> of /32.
It would be helpful to put this in the policy text so that anyone  
considering a request will know whether they are likely to qualify or  
not.
> > It would be helpful to people considering requesting a PI IPv6 prefix
> > and the RIPE NCC if the policy gave a clear statement of what is
> > required.
> Not sure if that's so easy, and I'm not really sure is really  
> needed. Do you
> have any idea ? We could also apply that "idea", may be, to the  
> standard
> IPv6 allocation policy.
>
> It will be good to understand if the staff is having problems  
> there, or it
> is just enough the way they are doing and it may be applied then  
> here the
> same.
One of the three principles guiding the policy process is that "it is  
transparent. All discussions and results are documented and freely  
available to all."[1] If the criteria for a decision are too  
difficult to define in the policy text then there's something wrong  
somewhere.
> > Also, the proposed text does not define a maximum size for an IPv6 PI
> > assignment. When this is combined with a lack of definition for the
> > qualification requirements it seems that a /32 of IPv6 PI could be
> > assigned. Is that intended?
> Not at all, it is not intended to assign a /32. However, if the  
> case justify
> it, we aren't closing the door. I really think it is difficult to  
> find a
> case that could justify that, in fact probably is very difficult to  
> justify
> cases that justify something shorter than /44, but you never know  
> how big
> can be a data center or content provider, for example.
I think it's difficult to define a case justifying it, too. But that  
doesn't mean that unreasonable requests won't be made. And if you  
don't have a clearly defined set of criteria you make things  
needlessly difficult for both the requesters and the registry.
Regards,

--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison

[1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html