[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

Hello,

Are there people here that say that a small change of the current policy is
a problem? The change would be that the list I did mention earlier is a
valid reason to get a IPv6 PI range.

If no one is saying that it is a problem at this moment to create a formal
proposal to change it (or a new proposal based on the current one) I would
like to create it the coming week. The target of the change will be to make
it a little bit easier to get IPv6 PI for organizations, so more
organizations could start offering their services on IPv6 (PA isn't enough
for many organizations if they are not the LIR).

With kind regards,

Mark Scholten

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: maandag 13 juli 2009 23:33
To: michiel at klaver.it
Cc: Stream Service || Mark Scholten; 'Address Policy Working Group'
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

Michiel and all,

  That seems terribly odd.

Michiel Klaver wrote:

> Dear Mark,
>
> We recently submitted PI request tickets to ripe for IPv4 and IPv6 with
> excactly the same details. The IPv4 request got assigned, the IPv6
> rejected due to the difference in the policies regarding VPN connections
> (internet access).
>
> ----- Original message -----
> > The PI IPv6 assignment cannot be further assigned to other
organisations.
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-472.html#_8._IPv6_Provider
> >
> > The definition of what an Infrastructure Assignment is is different when
comparing v6 and v4 policies. It is currently being discussed to align both
policies.
>
> Op 13-7-2009 15:04, Stream Service || Mark Scholten schreef:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are looking on getting an IPv6 PI range. But we want to use it for
the
> > same services we are running in the IPv4 world. Could you say if it is
> > allowed under IPv6 PI (some say yes, some say no and if you ask me it
should
> > be: yes, of course it is allowed).
> >
> > The things we want to use IPv6 PI for:
> > - dedicated servers (servers are owned by us)
> > - co located servers (servers are owned by clients)
> > - VPN (we have a few clients that use it, per VPN client at least 1 IP)
> > - VPS guests (per VPS guest at least 1 IP)
> > - https (per host an IP)
> >
> > And if it is not allowed: what would happen if we do it and someone
> > discovers it.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for the answers.
> >
> > With kind regards,
> >
> > Mark Scholten
> >

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827