pp - 2011-02 removal of multihomed requirement for ipv6

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

PP - 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6Presenter :

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

2

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

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”.

3

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

Proposed new policy text

• Remove point 8: a from the policy.

• Let’s keep things simple ..

4

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

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.

5

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

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.

6

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

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…

7

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

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.

8

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

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 …

9

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

Why is this not helpful ?• The current PI IPv6 multihoming

requirement is not improving the # of IPv6 deployments.

10

Erik Bais, May 5th 2011

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.

11

Questions?