1. Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 PP - 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 Presenter : Erik Bais – ebais @a2b-internet.com

2. Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Policy proposal info Authors – Erik Bais & Jordi Palet Current status : Open for Discussion Phase end : 13 May 2011 Impact on : RIPE - 512 2

3. Erik Bais, May 5 th 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”.Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region 3

4. Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Proposed new policy text Remove point 8: a from the policy. Let’s keep things simple.. 4

5. Erik Bais, May 5 th 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

6. Erik Bais, May 5 th 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

7. Erik Bais, May 5 th 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

8. Erik Bais, May 5 th 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

9. Erik Bais, May 5 th 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

10. Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Why is this not helpful ? The current PI IPv6 multihoming requirement is not improving the # of IPv6 deployments. 10

11. Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 What do you think ? In order to get your feedback on the topic : Send your comments to before 13 May 2011.address-policy-wg@ripe.net This could be as simple as : – I support the policy. 11

12. Questions?