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