1 / 12

PP - 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6

PP - 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6. Presenter : Erik Bais – ebais @a2b-internet.com . Policy proposal info. Authors – Erik Bais & Jordi Palet Current status : Open for Discussion Phase end : 13 May 2011 Impact on : RIPE - 512. 2011 – 02 Policy proposal .

tobias
Download Presentation

PP - 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PP - 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 • Presenter : • Erik Bais – ebais @a2b-internet.com

  2. Policy proposal info • Authors – Erik Bais & Jordi Palet • Current status : Open for Discussion • Phase end : 13 May 2011 • Impact on : RIPE - 512

  3. 2011 – 02 Policy proposal • In short : Removal of the multi-home requirement for IPv6 PI in policy RIPE – 512 • Current policy text : • 8. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments • To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: • a) demonstrate that it will be multihomed • b) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”.

  4. Proposed new policy text • Remove point 8: a from the policy. • Let’s keep things simple .. 

  5. Why this proposal change ? • Currently there is a discrimination between PA IPv6 and PI IPv6. • As a LIR, you can get a PA IPv6 prefix, without any requirements. • As an end-customer, you can only request a IPv6 PI prefix if you plan for multi-homing.

  6. Current policy is LIR biased • If you pay your way into the community (become a LIR), you are not required to multi-home. • There are plenty of LIR’s that don’t multi-home. • If an end-customer wants an IPv6 PI, they could get a cheap (PI) prefix, but have to start multi-homing.

  7. Where did it come from ? • Limiting IPv6 to PA or PI with multihoming, probably because of fear for v6 DFZ explosion. • However … if you pay to become a LIR, we (the community) don’t care about the DFZ. • So it’s not a technical issue, it is a financial question…

  8. Why not become a LIR? • There are plenty of reasons why a company doesn’t want to sign-up as a LIR. • Strategic reasons • They don’t require to allocate addresses to other entities. • They don’t see themselves as an ISP. • But they still require their own IP space, even if they don’t require / need multihoming.

  9. Why is multi-homing for EC’s not always good? • Multi-homing (BGP) is not for the faint-hearted. • A multi-homing is not cheap. You require : • Expensive equipment • Multiple transits (with a traffic commitment) • Engineers that understand IP/IPv6 & BGP setups. • BGP is setup based on trust and mistakes are quite common …

  10. Why is this not helpful ? • The current PI IPv6 multihoming requirement is not improving the # of IPv6 deployments.

  11. What do you think ? • In order to get your feedback on the topic : • Send your comments to<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 13 May 2011. • This could be as simple as : • I support the policy.

More Related