Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy

[CJ Wittbrodt <cjw@groovy.com>]

    Gert Doering <gert@space.net> writes:
    
    > Yes.  But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce
    > a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than 
    > giving the end site a /48 of their space.   Which I could imagine as a 
    > way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32.
    
    Why? If it there was a significat effect of costs on prefix
    announcement, we wouldn't see the huge number of (pseudo-) PI prefixes
    in today's table. I don't see a technical difference between
    announcement of an IPv4 PI /24 and an IPv6 /32 which would imply a
    significant difference in costs. Thus you will get an upstream for
    your v6 /32 as easily as now do for your v4 /24.
    
    The proposal poses the interesting question of other conditions to
    becoming LIR apart from costs. Currently RIPE requires a minimum of
    imediately assigned address space. What if anyone wants to become LIR
    for IPv6 only? Was this discussed?

Yes.  If they want to come and get IPv6 only there is no minimum
criteria.  Only that you become an LIR.  Others can correct me if
I am wrong, but I don't think so.  Mirjam specifically talked
about how they have a minimum requirement for IPv4 space, but
in the beginning they didn't.  The requirement now is because folks
figured out the "I can get one and not be an ISP" thing.  So 
if you pay your money and become a LIR you get a /32. That's what
was proposed.  I am sure there are minutes of the meeting by now.
Nope, just looked they're not there yet.  

> "For a limited period (the first 2000 requests in each RIR 
> region was suggested)
> allocate a /32 to ANY LIR requesting their IPv6 allocation 
> (subject to documentation of first IPv6 assignment)

This is what was presented in the working group summary.  I wrote
it down verbatim off of the overheads.   There was a promise of
the documentation of the whole discussion. I am sure that's taking
a while since it was quite lengthy.
    
    Sorry to ask since I wasn't at the meeting: What was said about larger
    allocation sizes than /32, e.g. for multinational ISPs for which a /32
    does not provide sufficient space for reasonable aggregation?
    
That was touched upon, but not really talked about in detail.
Anne from APNIC brought it up as one of her concerns.

Don't worry about not being at the meeting.  The weather was
cold and wet.  :-)
---CJ
    
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net