RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-02

Existing section 2.9. (ripe-388)

2.9. End Site

An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business relationship with a service provider that involves:

• that service provider assigning address space to the End User
• that service provider providing transit service for the End User to other sites
• that service provider carrying the End User's traffic
• that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End User's assignment

Proposed replacement text:

2.9. End Site

An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves:

• that service provider assigning address space to the End User
• that service provider providing transit service for the End User to other sites
• that service provider carrying the End User's traffic
• that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End User's assignment

Existing section 5.1.1. (ripe-388)

5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must:

1. be an LIR;
2. not be an End Site;
3. plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and
4. have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years.

Proposed replacement text:

5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria

To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must:

1. be an LIR;
   
2. advertise the allocation that they will receive as a single prefix if the prefix is to be used on the Internet;
   
3. have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years.

a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal

There have been already very clear examples and discussions in the region about the need for this modification.

The inability to obtain IPv6 address space by some big entities which require it is a clear barrier to the deployment of IPv6.

By adopting this policy, we avoid creating an unfair situation among different regions, many of which have already modified the original IPv6 common policy to avoid these barriers, based on experience which was not available initially.

Possibly we could even say that requiring an arbitrary number of sites in order to qualify for an allocation might be considered against law in many countries. We must understand that the community can't set policies that might easily be considered illegal by courts, as this could have severe implications.

b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal

The possible effect of this proposal is a growth of global routing tables, as naturally can be expected, because new allocations will be possible according to the suggested modifications.

However, this is the right thing to do and the right thing to happen.

Moreover, the actual opposition arguments should be against being unfair to smaller ISPs, which could not justify a fixed number of assignments, which is quite irrational and could be compared to a similar requirement for allocating IPv4 space, which would never be accepted by the community.

Acknowledgments:

I would like to acknowledge all those who have contributed during many years, to the discussion of the modifications to the existing policy suggested by this proposal.