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

["Timothy Clarke" <timothy.clarke@localhost]

2008-01

The only questions that then are raised are what happens when some one with
PI refuses to pay, misses payment etc and the space gets revoked?

When a customer comes to an ISP saying I have a PI and here is my prefix.
I'm assuming most ISP's do a DB lookup to confirm those details are correct,
before advertising, are we saying RIPE now need to notify ISP's that a
prefix should be withdrawn because it hasn't been paid for ?

Depending on the cost / importance of the contract with the ISP are they
going to pay these fees? Will the fees be part of the ISP's contract so
avoid the situation above?


As for the whole non-routable question. Would the block then be charged at a
different rate because there won't be additional cost of a route entry in
the global table? Should there then be an extra field in the object saying
this is a non routable range (Yes the space comes from what SHOULD be
routable) ?

The give an ASN with a PI question should be rejected, a bunch of places
want PI for multi-homing reasons but want nothing to do with BGP, that's why
they buy a managed service. If someone wants an ASN, what's wrong with the
current rules ?



As for the renumbering question, don't assume it's always easy. For a web
server or mail server or similar, fine. DNS servers slightly harder, but
doable.
We do WiFi with RFC1918 space and NAT (on IPv4), most European WISP's do. We
have a few thousand VPN's for this, trying to move them is simply too costly
without significant reason. 
It would be easier and cheaper for us to setup a new legal entity on each
country we operate then to migrate these connections.

2008-02
The point some are trying to make is there are few LIR's that can fully
justify IPv6 PA space right now because they don't have the customers. 

Perhaps the policy needs to change for the initial IPv6 PA so new & existing
LIR's can get IPv6 even if they have no customers.


Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost
[
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of michael.dillon@localhost
Sent: 16 January 2008 11:23
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6
PI to Every Inetnum Holder)


> > What is non-routable PI? 
> > What can you do with it that you cannot do with a ULA prefix?
> >   
> Not routed for things like VPN-Connections and the likes ... 
> users sometimes need unique IP addresses, as the chance of 
> running into a customer/partner that happens to use the same 
> RFC networks is growing ... IPv6 will make the chances 
> smaller, but getting a PI assigned for such purposes would 
> eliminate that problem.

If you look at current RIPE policies, they imply that all PI
address blocks may not be routable on the Internet. LIRs are
supposed to warn applicants about this when they issue the PI
block. Of course, in most cases, the PI blocks are routable
because in most cases, if you announce the block, providers
will accept the announcement.

The need for such extranet addresses is a good reason for
RIPE to allow PI allocations/assignments of IPv6 addresses
but 2008-01 is the wrong way to go about it.

Here is my wish list for IPv6 PI:

- No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6.
- special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders
- contract signed between RIPE and PI holders that covers fee
  payments, and revocation/return of address blocks
- special known superblock from which all PI allocations are made
  so that people can manage their filters
- /48 minimum PI allocation but larger aggregate is also possible
- contact every IPv4 PI holder by email and inform them of the 
  new rules for IPv6 PI allocations

In my opinion that should be followed by another policy change
which requires RIPE membership, annual fee payment and a signed
contract for any future ASN assignments or IPv4 PI address blocks.

--Michael Dillon


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Cloud Networks Limited is registered in England and Wales with registered number 5141256 and registered office at 54 - 58 Bartholomew Close London EC1A 7HP, United Kingdom.  The registered VAT number is GB/839621406.
 
This e-mail and any attachments contain information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of The Cloud Networks Limited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail, and then delete it.  Any unauthorised dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
 
The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses, which could damage your own computer system.  Although this e-mail and any files attached to it may have been checked with virus detection software before transmission you should carry out your own virus checks before opening the attachment.  No liability can be accepted for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please consider the environment before printing this email

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature