[address-policy-wg] PI concept in general, was IPv6 PI resource question!

Hi Shane & Daniel,

On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 20:41 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> We're allowing PIv6 for "multihomed" (whatever that means really) sites.
> Those could "just simply" use PA space from any ISP they connect to. 

I see customers that don't want to become a LIR or have the intention to do multi-homing, however they would like to have the option to request IPv6 addresses that are not tied to their provider (PA space). 

And as a LIR, sorting out their request for PI address space is something we charge for. If they don't want to shell out a couple hundred euro's for the handling of the request via us as their LIR or the cost for a direct end-user assignment or LIR fee, they can use IP's from our PA space which they would have to give back when they decide to take their business elsewhere. 

The term multi-homing by using BGP in the policy, is something I'm personally as a network provider not very keen on, as every AS they would need to connect to, is a connection to another provider that is a direct competitor. Simple as that. 

Is it better for the routing table / routers etc, to have larger blocks and as little as small prefixes as possible ?  Sure, it will scale a lot better, however as the option of obtainable PI IPv6 space is there, people could request it for their own infrastructure and use it. 

The limitation of PIv6 in combination with multihomed (as in multihomed with its own AS using BGP) is something I personally would rather see dropped than enforced. Some companies actually take the steps into v6 & multi-homing in steps or want to take the approach, renumber once ... and NEVER again !! 
And we'll see in the future if multi-homed is going to be pursued or required. 

----

> In this IPv6 PI discussion people say it is too expensive to be an LIR.
> This strikes me as weird... even cheap network gear costs way more than
> the LIR fee, and certainly the personnel costs are many times that, even
> in countries where technical folks are poorly paid. But anyway....

The cost for a LIR status are not the issue from what I see for most of the companies I speak with. 
Most of them just don't want to deal with the RIPE stuff (yet). They don't see themselves as an ISP or hoster and are perfectly happy with the fact they can only use PI for their own infrastructure. 
Next to the stated cost of router equip, most of them are very happy to deal with racks of servers and linux patches etc. but are not up to speed on routing / networking / bgp etc. They just want to be prepared in case they move and / or grow to a size where they would want to run their own network equipment because it is at some point cheaper to sort out their own traffic / network. 

----

>Is there another reason to want to limit PI assignments? There may be.
>Certainly the folks over in abuse-land think we should have super strict
>controls over all addresses, and revoke them at the first hint of
>naughtiness. Or there may be administrative reasons - an entirely
>different kind of infrastructure is needed to manage hundreds of
>thousands of low-fee (well, NO fee now) PI-holders than thousands of
>high-fee LIRs. I don't know.

>So... do you think we should simply remove all restrictions for IPv6 PI
>and issue space if someone wants it, period? If not, what possible
>restriction would there be?

In my personal opinion, cost isn't always the topic when deciding for PI. 
I would even dare to say that currently PI objects are way too cheap. And I wouldn't mind to ask customers to pay a yearly fee of 250 euro up-to 400 Euro per /48 PI IPv6 if they wouldn't have the multi-homing requirement. And by making it a bit more expensive, it will also provide a barrier that this isn't free or something to have for fun. But the companies that really want it for their own reasons, they will request it anyway. 

----

>Finally, I think what bothers me about PI in general though is that once
>the initial assignment is made... that's it. At least with RIPE 452 we
>have *some* contractual relationship with the PI holder, but that's
>about it.

>I guess the "LIR middleman" model comes from the mists of time, long ago
>in history. It certainly reduces the burden on the RIPE NCC, but it
>never really struck me as sensible. After all, isn't the whole point of
>PI space that you don't want to have to depend on an LIR?

Not completely, having a LIR dealing with your requests, db updates and sorting out the route-objects etc. could still add value to those customers that don't want to become a LIR. As said above, a lot of my PI customers have no clue about networking or RIPE policies, having a LIR to fall-back to, adds value to them and it is cheaper than becoming a direct end-user or a LIR themselves.   

Regards,
Erik Bais