[address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Aug 10 12:23:44 CEST 2011
Jasper Jans wrote: > | Most of the IPv4 PI address space allocation comes from the pre-CIDR period of time. Well, pre-CIDR (and pre-RIR times), the notion of "PI" is pretty fuzzy, because everything given out then was sort of PI, including Class A and Class B blocks. But I guess the general understanding here is to mean the 192/8 space. > I am pretty > | sure that all the examples hinted by Wilfried are early allocations, may be even > pre-RIPE allocations. > > If you are implying here that the amount of PI allocated these days vs what was allocated before makes > it so that there is hardly any impact Without wanting to imply anything, just providing us with real figures - iirc NCC Registration Services has given a very nice report recently (at 61 or 62? a recent NRO report?), listing the number of PI assignmenet vs the number of PA allocations, and the percentage of space given out for the 2 categories. Unfortunately, I cannot find this/those presentation/s on short notice right now. Maybe the NCC can help? Again, iirc, IPv4 PI is pretty attractive still in (some parts of) our Service Region; to my personal surprise even after implementation of 2007-01. I take that as quite some folks having pretty good reasons to request that type of addresses. Wilfried. > - then yea maybe.. i do not have the numbers to support this > either way. However if this is supposed to imply that PI was mainly handed out in the old days and > these days there are other (better??) options - then I have to disagree - there are obviously many > valid reasons these days to still get IPv4 PI space under the rules that exist, and from my personal > experience none of these allocations are made to organisations with an AS or dual homing today - hence > these organisations can not get IPv6 PI to run dual-stack etc (that is what we all wanted right - run > dual-stack while you still can and do not set yourself up for difficult transition setups?). > > To me it is very strange to have the next version of IP being incompatible from a policy perspective > with the previous - this is a severe problem for at least our customers to move to IPv6. All of their > reasons to run PI on IPv4 are just as valid on IPv6 however the dual-homing policy line prevents them > from making the transition. > > I am all for learning from our mistakes - but we cannot deploy policy that excludes a group of people > when it comes to IPv6 that already qualified for ipv4 PI. If we really have to do the dual-homing > requirement (I'm of the opinion we don't) then at the very least make it so that the clause states > that you need to be dual-homed for any new IPv6 PI, or must already own IPv4 PI. This way you can > prevent people from getting it that do not have it yet but allow the ones that already run IPv4 PI to > get IPv6 PI. > > Jasper > > Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]