Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

["Elmar K. Bins" elmi@localhost]

Hi Garry,

second all of this...

garry@localhost (Garry Glendown) wrote:

> - /48, not /56
> - small yearly fee (100-200€?) for routable PI
> - small one-time fee (100-200€?) for non-routable PI (take them out of a 
> defined /32 or so which is/can/should be filtered by ISPs)
> - don't automatically distribute IPv6 space (both PI and LIRs) - e.g., 
> our customers with PI I don't see using IPv6 within at least the next 5 
> years (we've had v6 available for several years ...). Instead, make 
> initial v6 applications and allocations "painless", allowing for any PI 
> owners to just "lift their hand" and they receive their v6-PI (/48) for 
> just paying ;)

...but: Don't forget the LIRs-that-have-no-customers, please.

We're in this peculiar situation: We are heavily multihomed in v4 but
cannot get any v6; we have to make do with an assignment from one of
our transits and agreements with the others to carry that assignment
separately (and not filter it).

Yours,
	Elmi.

-- 

"Hinken ist kein Mangel eines Vergleichs, sondern sollte als wesentliche
 Eigenschaft von Vergleichen angesehen werden."       (Marius Fränzel in desd)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---