Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

[Alexander Lobachov alxl@localhost]

Hello,

Andy Davidson wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2008, at 08:51, Frederic wrote:
> > It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an
> > automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain
> > things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere.
> Respectfully,  no.
>
> PI means provider *independent*.  If I apply for PA and assign /48s, my 
> customer is not free to multihome simply, or move providers without 
> renumbering.
Actually you can multihome, as simple as it gets. Who can stop you to 
set up personal peerings with others, just because you're already in 
routing tables (as part of the bigger PA alloc prefix)?
> Whether I submit an application for PI on behalf of my customer, or 
> whether RIPE give them some PI because of this policy, it doesn't change 
> my customers' ability to multihome or even terminate their service with me.
As I've said above, multihoming is possible inside of PA, but you 
(almost) always will get being tied with PA holder, i.e. in (almost) any 
case you will be visible as part of PA alloc announcement, more 
speficial is preferable, remember.
Once again, PA and PI doesn't really differ from routing point of view.

I have no expirience with IPv6 at all, all written above is correct with 
IPv4, and
> Support ipv6 PI, please.  But only by request.
Support IPv6, period. I don't think we need all the garbage with PI in 
IPv6 as we have in IPv4 ("lost" address space)
> Best wishes
> Andy
--
Best regards,

Alexander Lobachov		alxl@localhost
System administrator
Cronos IT, SIA