On 9 Aug 2011, at 16:50, Sascha Lenz wrote:
there is no IPv4 PI problem (rather a IPv4 PA deaggregation problem),
So there's no problem with IPv4 PI space. Except when there is one. And that can be fixed by calling it something different. I see. :-)
there is a problem with this difference between IPv4 and IPv6 PI policies which hinders IPv6 deployment right now
Please explain Sascha. I just don't get it. IPv6 deployment isn't hindered by the availability of PI space. At least not in the general case. Can you give some actual examples where a problem getting PI IPv6 space has (or is) a showstopper for IPv6 deployment?
This policy change is about NOTHING else than aligning the IPv6 PI policy with the IPv4 PI policy we have for ages.
That's all very well. However it may be the answer to the wrong question. Suppose we didn't have IPv4 PI space at all. Would we invent this concept for IPv6? If so, why? If not, why not?
This policy change does not try to solve any other problem than allowing IPv4 PI holders who don't multi-home to be able to get IPv6 PI and do the right thing - getting IPv6 deployment started.
Maybe, but why does someone need IPv6 PI space to start deploying IPv6?
If there is a problem with this policy in 5-10 years due to some reasons, we can change the policy again, it's not written in stone. Things change, policies can, too.
In that case, let's leave things as they are and revisit this issue in 5-10 years when we understand the actual problems we have then. [Predicting the future is an inexact science.] The policies will be able to change when the need arises in 5-10 years time too. You seem to be saying "Let's repeat all the mistakes everyone made with PI IPv4 space with IPv6. We can always fix that breakage by changing the policies later.". If so, doing the wrong thing now, even if well intentioned, could be storing up even bigger problems for later. I'm neither for or against 2011-02: just trying to better understand the rationale and motivation behind it.