[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

Hi folks,

I couldn't agree more with Cynthia, policies are too strict and require justification which doesn't allow expansion over time and is just based on immediate needs.

All that especially in the era of exhausted IPv4 is practically unbelievable. 

No offense of course, just the reality.

Best,
Krasimir

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:14 PM
To: Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

Hi Cynthia,

> I am in the process of requesting 3x /48 of IPv6 PI for a customer, and what confuses me is that the NCC requires way more justification for 3x /48 of PI than for 2x /29 of PA.
> 
> I do think that saying something like net1 will be used in the Netherlands, net2 in London, and net3 in New York should be enough. I mean after all, any LIR can get 512K /48s and unlike ASNs, PI space does have a small fee attached with it.
> 
> I can't think of a good reason why this is the case.

The policy says:

"""
The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. Organisations requesting a larger assignment (shorter prefix) must provide documentation justifying the need for additional subnets.

Additional assignments may also be made when the need is demonstrated and documented based on address usage, or because different routing requirements exist for additional assignments.
"""

Your case seems to fit the "different routing requirements" rule. I would ask the NCC why they think that rule doesn't apply. They may have a reason. Without further data I can't judge their decision.

> Once again to make it clear, if you are a member it is easier to get 1 million /48s than it is for a non member to get 3 /48s.

Aggregatable addresses are indeed strongly preferred :)

Cheers,
Sander