This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jan 15 17:56:03 CET 2018
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 04:42:49PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> 2) The proposal clearly is NOT intended for ???permanent??? broadband services, but his is NOT stated in the proposed text change. I doubt that the NCC can enforce a policy that don???t have that stated in the policy text. Can the NCC confirm that?
This has been brought up a few times over the lifetime of this policy
proposal (by me and by Max at least) and it has also been answered a
few times.
As far as I can see, all other comments relating to this issue said
"this point was relevant 10 years ago when the IPv6 PI policy was made,
but it is no longer relevant today, with people opening new LIRs every
day, to get IPv4 address space, so they can get IPv6 allocations (/29!)
without extra costs(*) - and since there are enough ISPs today that do the
right thing, customers have a choice if one of them tries to play a
single-address-from-PI trick"
We might be wrong.
But enough people "back then" have also said we should have never done
IPv6 PI, and we still deviced that the possible benefit outweighs the
possible drawbacks ("the routing table will explode"). Without the
occasional risk or mistake, there is standstill, which has its own set
of risks and might be a mistake...
(*) let me emphasize that: in the RIPE region, you pay a single membership
fee, if you are a LIR. So whether you request a /29 IPv6 or not will
not make a financial difference - so the monetary incentive to "get a
/48 PI and run your ISP with that" is just not there if you already
are a RIPE member for the IPv4... - I know ARIN is different, with paying
for every chunk you receive, and paying more for larger sizes. No idea
how LACNIC fees are structured.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180115/8243e5b9/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]