[address-policy-wg] Discussion on Options for Revising the IPv6 PI Assignment Policy

> 
Moin,

> > ## Section 2.9
> > 
> > - Define meaning of 'End Site' for PA and PI individually to better
> >   distinguish between the nuances of the two
> > - Make sure that an L2 link (e.g., direct fibre/wave, packet-
> >   switched vlan etc.) does not merge end sites.
> 
> You can't verify that, can you? An IPRA can't verify that...

The problem is that, at the moment, mentioning that you do have any
form of L2 link between sites will lead to those being just one end
site.

So, for example:

You apply for PI for your rack in Country A and your rack in Country B,
both multi-homed and 100-1000KM apart from each other. However, you
also have a wave between them and put a QDD-400G-ZRP-S into your
routers at each site and plug in the cables bringing in your wave; Now,
technically, there is an L2 link between those two sites (replace the
wave with any form of, e.g., packet-switched L2 transport as well; I
acknowledge that the average End User will not spend EUR20k+ on
transceivers for their two racks).

If you note this in a PI application for two assignments of /48, this
will now become one End Site, only qualifying for one /48, unless
supported by addressing needs.

Indeed, it is impossible for an IPRA to verify that, so you could just
"not mention that detail". However, the intention of the change set is
also to reduce points where people might feel the need to 'not be
exactly accurate in their requests'. ;-)


> I like the above goals. This needs to be done as I received numerous
> complaints about exactly what we are trying to fix here.


Thanks. Good to hear that this goes into a reasonable direction.

With best regards,
Tobias

-- 
Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig
T +31 616 80 98 99
M tobias at fiebig.nl