[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Hi,

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 02:09:03PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> It's not a formal requirement but, de-facto, if the holder of PA
> resources wants connectivity, they have to get it from the LIR.
> Otherwise, why would there be a necessity for
> "provider-aggregateable" resources?

That is the "traditional" ISP=LIR model.

Especially in the government and enterprise market, there's other models
today, like "the government LIR holds a /26, each region in a country
has a /32 out of that, and each region is free to pick their own ISP
to have the /32 routed".

(The impact to the routing table is is about the same as "each region
has their own LIR", but for internal administrative reasons these setups
prefer to have a common address space for all official networks...)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180519/294db60f/attachment.sig>