Dear all, In line with my comments on this mailing list earlier this year, I support this proposal. While this proposal is similar in intention to 2009-06, I think having both options available for the community would be an improvement over having just one. Kind regards, Remco On 03-06-09 12:09, "Ingrid Wijte" <ingrid@ripe.net> wrote:

PDP Number: 2009-08 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs

Dear Colleagues

A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 1 July 2009.

Regards

Ingrid Wijte Assistant Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

On 03/06/2009 11:09, Ingrid Wijte wrote:

IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs

This policy proposal has merit, and is really a variety of the inherent aggregation "problem" which was "solved" in ipv6: namely that with ipv4, providers got smallish blocks of space which they could chop and dice in all sorts of flexible ways under the category of traffic engineering (because as we all know, deaggregation is bad and should be stamped out). With IPv6, the underlying assumption has been that /32 "should be enough for anyone". Indeed, for most people, it is - if you want to stick all your traffic engineering eggs in the one basket. But now that we're actually deploying IPv6 a little, it's becoming clearer that this is an operationally naive assumption to make. Turning it around slightly, the problem is an extension of the multihoming problem. We have no functional technical solution for this at the moment, other than to use the ipv4 bodge: namely multiple prefixes, each announced with an independent routing policy. So, really, the issue you're trying to solve here is probably not whether LIRs should be entitled to PI assignments (which is perhaps an interesting digression), but really how can LIRs engage in meaningful traffic engineering in the ipv6 world, and whether this should interact with address policy management. I sense a collision of policy and operations here. Nick