Hello, On 05/05/2014 10:08 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"...
What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement.
Seems I was wrong. IPv6 PI for LIRs did exist at the time that the last /8 policy was written. I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
The particular case that motivated me to take part in this policy proposal is that one of TREX's members got their address space as direct end user assignments during the brief while that was possible. Their organization was later auto-converted to be a LIR. They are perfectly happy with their IPv6 PI block, which they do not wish to renumber away from, because they have name servers registered in a hundred TLDs using addresses from that block already. In fact, as an alternative: they might like it if their IPv6 PI could be converted into an IPv6 PA without making it any larger. :-) Cheers, -- +358 4567 02048 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."