Transcript RIPE Slide Master

PP - 2011-02
Removal of multihomed
requirement for IPv6
Presenter :
Erik Bais – ebais @a2b-internet.com
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
Policy proposal info
•
Authors – Erik Bais & Jordi Palet
•
Current status : Open for Discussion
•
Phase end : 13 May 2011
•
Impact on : RIPE - 512
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
2
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”.
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
3
Proposed new policy text
•
Remove point 8: a from the policy.
•
Let’s keep things simple .. 
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
4
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.
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
5
Current policy is LIR biased
•
If you pay your way into the community
(become a LIR), you are not required to multihome.
– 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.
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
6
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…
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
7
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.
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
8
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
– Multiple
transits (with a traffic commitment)
– Engineers
•
equipment
that understand IP/IPv6 & BGP setups.
BGP is setup based on trust and mistakes are
quite common …
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
9
Why is this not helpful ?
•
The current PI IPv6 multihoming requirement is
not improving the # of IPv6 deployments.
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
10
What do you think ?
•
In order to get your feedback on the topic :
•
Send your comments to
<[email protected]> before 13 May
2011.
•
This could be as simple as :
–
Erik Bais, May 5th 2011
I support the policy.
11
Questions?