[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 ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Fri Aug 19 15:05:40 CEST 2011
Hi Erik, 2011/8/19 Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> > Hi Andrzej & Turchanyi, **** > > ** ** > > That is a difference in that respect between IPv4 and IPv6. **** > > ** ** > > End-customers that request IPv4 PI might find themselves after a while in a > situation where the initial request allocation isn't big enough and they can > and will request another prefix. > It would have been better and still would be better even in that case to use only one prefix and return the original one to the RIR. > **** > > ** ** > > For IPv6 that isn't likely and I've heard that some people are a bit > concerned about this. **** > > ** ** > > One of the things we might want to put into the IPv6 PI limitations is that > an end-customer can only request a single IPv6 PI Prefix and to a maximum of > a certain size. ( say a /34 ) > The example (/34) given is very fare from that I would support. If an end user needmore than a /48 the and user should provide very detailed plan of its network. (For a home network /60 tipically more than enough). Any organization that might need a /40 (or more) AND PI address space, should become a LIR and contribute in the normal way to the internet address administration costs, I think. **** > > Anything beyond that should be considered LIR sized and the end-customer > should become a LIR and turn in their PI prefix. **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Erik Bais**** > > ** ** > > *From:* address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto: > address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Turchanyi Geza > *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 5:41 AM > *To:* Andrzej Dopierała > *Cc:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?**** > > ** ** > > Hello Andrzej, > > Good point. You said that some ISPs are using IPv4 PI address space just > because they asked it in their very small ISP status, as being pre-LIR. > > It would have been much better to change back these addresses to PA already > long time. > > Is there anybody who can suggest a cleaning policy? Of course, vleaning is > very difficult whan almost all IPv4 address space have gone... ;-(( > > Anyhow, the danger og creating too many routing table entries by allocating > Provider Independent (IPv6) addresses is still exist and should not be > overlooked. > > Best, > > Géza > > **** > > 2011/8/18 Andrzej Dopierała <undefine at aramin.net>**** > > W dniu 18.08.2011 23:42, Turchanyi Geza pisze:**** > > ** ** > > Second point: if ALL IPv4 PI holder would request IPv6 PI then you might > expect another 17K prefixes in the routing table just from the RIPE Region! > And this is just the start!**** > > Most ipv4 PI holders have more than one prefix - when first was not enought > - they get another. Few ISP in poland get 3-4 prefixes when they weren't > LIR. > > For ipv6 one prefix is always enought - so 17k is much to much :) > > Regards, > > Andrzej > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3843 - Release Date: 08/18/11*** > * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110819/a279dc2d/attachment.html>
- 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 ]