[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Tue Feb 15 22:31:47 CET 2011
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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]