On 11 April 2023 from 13:30 to 15:00 (UTC+2), the Address Policy Working Group held a interim session via Zoom Zoom to review the RIPE IPv6 policies and identify desired policy outcomes and set priorities. More background on this work is published on RIPE Labs.
Co-chairs: Erik Bais, James Kennedy, Leo Vegoda
Scribe: Boris Duval
Leo Vegoda welcomed attendees and reminded everyone to follow the Code of Conduct.
The agenda for the meeting was as follow:
Tobias Fiebig, MPI-INF, kicked off the conversation by talking about his experience with requesting IPv6 an PI /46 assignment and the different problems he encountered with the RIPE NCC in his request. He said that he needed the address space for a research project and that he had ended up buying a /32 allocation because the discussion with the RIPE NCC staff had gone on too long. He also questioned the interpretation of the policy by the RIPE NCC staff in relation to his request.
This triggered a discussion on the difference between managing a device and managing a network, as well as the definition of an End Site. This is a definition originating in ripe-246 from 2002. The working group then discussed whether this definition should be updated but did not come to a conclusion.
This also raised an older discussion about whether PIs were still needed or whether we should only have PAs. Erik Bais reminded the working group that some organisations are not allowed to join membership organisations, like the RIPE NCC. PI space is a way to ensure that they can get addresses they can manage, instead of always depending on addresses from an upstream provider. Sander Steffann, 6connect, also mentioned that only using PA space would create a significant workload for the RIPE NCC, as there would be an increase in the number of LIRs.
The working group also discussed the impact of prefix charges for PI space, arguing that many organisations will see this as an incentive to become members. However, Matt Parker, RIPE NCC, reminded the working group that a policy should stand alone and not be dependent on a charging scheme, as charging schemes are updated over time.
After listening to the different opinions, Leo proposed a draft text to summarise what was said and to move the discussion forward:
“PI assignments should be based on the organisation managing the network and not the ownership of the devices connected to it.
Eliminate needs requirement up to /44.”
Leo mentioned that the working group will present this draft at RIPE 86 and pick it up from there.
Finally, Sander proposed to work on a document that would clarify the terminology used in policies (e.g. End Site). The working group agreed with the idea and Sander said that he would try to see if he has time to work on such a document.