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

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Alexander Lobachov wrote:

> 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 think it is different from operational routing point of view: If you 
have PA prefix you can announce your routes only to your provider unless 
you have different agreement with your friendly peers. But these friendly 
peers should not announce your PA routes anyone else upstream. 
Aggregation should happen via your provider allocated PA for you.

In case of PI you much more freedom....

Best Regards,
 	Janos Mohacsi