[address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting

>> The problem here is that the extra route has a global cost for everyone.
> 
> Just as every LIR PA block is at the global cost of everyone.

Correct. The idea is that one LIR PA block covers lots of customers. It's a matter of scalability... I would love to give every organization it's own block of addresses. If someone finds a way to make that scale please let us know.

> No surprised that non-LIRs are so much underrepresented in RIR policy processes. It's basically a hopeless position to take.


It certainly is not. A few years ago the was no IPv6 PI policy, and now we have one. It's not perfect, but it provides addresses for those that need them for multi-homing. At that point in time that was seen as the only valid reason for IPv6 PI.

In this whole discussion about PI space I have seen several other reasons why people want PI space:

- They already provide access services with IPv4 PI space
According to the current policy they should become an LIR and get PA space. When we last discussed this here the conclusion was that this was intentional. The cost for setting up an LIR seem to be a problem for some here.

- They want to avoid renumbering
Preventing possible renumbering in the future has (until now at least) not been seen as a good enough reason to get PI addresses. IPv6 does make renumbering already a bit easier than it was with IPv6, and I really hope that more effort will be put into making it even easier.

If we (=working group) decide that there should be IPv6 PI for these or other purposes, let's discuss that. This is a working group. If you want to see something changed: write a proposal and it will be discussed!

Thanks,
Sander