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

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:42:04PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
> >> 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...

An "enterprise" becoming LIR to get their /32-no-questions-asked as
effective PI doesn't aggregate any customers as well.

With that argument, you have to avoid non-ISPs becoming LIRs as well.

> > 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.

Yes, but why? Not to do customers a favour, but the LIRs realized that
IPv6 migration won't really happen unless they give the relevant content
players PI for their operations. Which induces a lot of operational
headache and cost primarily on the ISP side. "Enterprises" are already
used to NATting their day away - ISPs not.

What I see coming is that ULA + NAT will be vast IPv6 reality. Thanks
that the IPv6 end-to-end promise is killed off again via restrictive
policies made by ISPs for ISPs.

> - They already provide access services with IPv4 PI space
> According to the current policy they should become an LIR and get PA space.

So just "make them pay a penalty". They are not aggregating customers,
so no good reason for PA other than artificial hurdle.

> 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.

A working group with almost zero lobby for non-LIRs. Don't start fights
you cannot win.

> If you want to see something changed: write a proposal and it will be
> discussed!

Yes, between folks who have zero business interest for such a proposal
to pass. See above - a fight you cannot win.

Non-LIRs aren't organized enough to have any effective influence on RIR
policy development process.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0