[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

Hi Gert,

I understand there should be rules. And I am totally for having meaningful rules and those rules to be followed. It is just that from my own personal experience and the shared experience of people I worked with in my network there are sometimes complications with requesting meaningful space for small business with multiple sites planning for additional sites in the near year or two.

On your remark about /48 being pretty huge, I do agree it is huge, but unfortunately it is still the case that a /48 is the norm and upstreams would filter smaller prefixes. 

As per /32 vs /19 I also agree, /32 is more than enough for almost any needs.

What I am trying to say is that sometimes people struggle getting the space they need and the one they planned for in future aggregated because they have no immediate needs. You are right, if there is immediate need they will always get it. 

Best,
Krasimir


-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 2:05 AM
To: Krasimir Ganchev <ganchev at fixity.net>
Cc: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>; Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:47:04AM +0000, Krasimir Ganchev via address-policy-wg wrote:
> 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.

This claim is just not true.

There might be some cases where expectations and grandeur plans do not match reality, and in this cases it's reasonable that the NCC is strict and will not hand out a /19 to someone who can fulfill all their expected needs with a /32.

There are other cases where the NCC is asking lots of questions, and maybe there are cases where the NCC is too strict.  So we need to talk about these and see if it's "lack of reasonable documentation on the user side" or "annoying interpretation on the NCC side".

OTOH, a /48 for an end-user site or a /29 for an ISP is pretty huge (we have not even extended our /32 to a /29 as we assume that we will never manage to fill the /32) - and documented reality shows that *if* you need more, you can get it today.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair, and IPv6 user from day one, where the policies were
           *much* stricter than today
--
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