[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jasper Jans
Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl
Mon Feb 14 14:43:37 CET 2011
We are facing a different issue but would also like a reevaluation of the policy. We have a fair amount of customers that have IPv4 PI space for valid reasons. The IPv6 PI policy calls for demonstrated multihoming - which if we read it correctly means that if these customers want to migrate from IPv4 to IPv6 all of a sudden they will require an ASN as well as a second transit provider. We would like to see a provision in the policy that allows IPv4 to IPv6 migrations with regards to PI space - say if you qualified for IPv4 PI space - irrespective of what the rules are for IPv6 PI space - you will always qualify for IPv6 PI space. This will allow stricter rules for new applications while also easing the migration from v4 to v6. Jasper -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vegar Løvås Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:08 PM To: Yasen Simeonov(Neterra NMT) Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question! Hello, I also thinks this policy should be reevaluated. We are experiencing almost the same issue, but more related to the "your infrastructure" part. One of our customers is a hosting company, and their application got rejected because they wanted to use the addresses for their shared hosting service. This is not how it should be, as a shared hosting server has 1 IP address shared among all of the customers. Why would each customer need it's own allocation? -- Best regards, Vegar Løvås Rent a Rack AS On 14.02.2011 13:59, Yasen Simeonov(Neterra NMT) wrote: > Thanks for the replay. > I think this should be reevaluated! > > On 14/02/2011 12:43, Sander Steffann wrote: >> With IPv6 you don't give every user one IP address (which would be >> your infrastructure), but you usually assign them a block of >> addresses. For making assignments to end-users you need a PA block. >> And: there is no 'your infrastructure' rule for IPv6. That is only >> defined for IPv4. > Is that mean that the ISPs should make an entry in the RIPE's database > for each household to which gives access to the Internet? > > > Here is reveal the danger we as LIR can not give PI IPv6 to this ISP, > but some of our competitors /another LIR/ > to conceal the fact that they will be given to end customers / > households / and the ISP will receive this resource. > > How would you advise a small ISP in a small rural area which has no > financial ability to pay the fee for becoming LIR, > to be independent from the upstream provider ? > > What would be the reason a company that deals with Internet delivery can > not get a PI IPv6 resources, but a company which is engaged in other > activity can get it. > > Please share your opinion. > > 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] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]