Skip to main content

Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations

This policy proposal has been accepted

You're looking at an older version: 3

The current (published) version is 5
Publication date:
06 Jan 2011
Draft document
  • Jordi Palet Martinez [Consulintel]
Proposal Version
5.0 - 09 Feb 2009
All Versions
10 Apr 2009
Working Group
Address Policy Working Group
Proposal type
  • New
Policy term

This proposal introduced a solution for organisations that needed IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) address space.

Summary of Proposal:

This policy is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments.

Typically, such organisations will require the PI assignment to become Multihomed as happens for IPv4, but there may be other reason behind requests. This policy proposal is only trying to cover this type of PI assignments (for example data centers which are not an ISP, or content providers).


a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal

In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a PI allocation, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because they need either to be Multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons for needing a portable addressing block.

This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from the RIPE NCC.

Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed to make further assignments to other external organisations, but instead only to assign subnets internally within their own facilities.

Assigning a /32 would make those blocks behave as other regular LIR allocated ones and follow generally accepted routing filtering practices. At the same time, the blocks would be identifiable as belonging to a special 'super block'. This would also allow organisations to become an LIR and avoid the need for renumbering.

By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an unfair situation among different regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required PI address space. All organisations that opt for this PI, will be in an equal position once the community agrees a long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for PI under this policy because they do not need it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation.

b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal

The possible effect of this proposal is a growth of global routing tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4 routing entries, could create significant issues for operators unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for infrastructure investments.

It is expected that organisations requesting an IPv6 PI prefix under this policy, which may need in the future a standard PA block, will apply for that according to existing policies and will need to renumber.