[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)

Hello,

On 05/05/2014 10:08 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>> Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs
>>> to "do something with IPv6"...

>> What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for
>> IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have
>> IPv6 PI as a valid requirement.

> Seems I was wrong. IPv6 PI for LIRs did exist at the time that the
> last /8 policy was written. I think at the time we just didn't even
> consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.

The particular case that motivated me to take part in this policy 
proposal is that one of TREX's members got their address space as direct 
end user assignments during the brief while that was possible. Their 
organization was later auto-converted to be a LIR.

They are perfectly happy with their IPv6 PI block, which they do not 
wish to renumber away from, because they have name servers registered in 
a hundred TLDs using addresses from that block already.

In fact, as an alternative: they might like it if their IPv6 PI could be 
converted into an IPv6 PA without making it any larger. :-)

Cheers,

-- 
	+358 4567 02048 / http://www.trex.fi/
	Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy

	You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."