Apropos of one of those endless arguments on the Internet (where everything is true, because it says it on the Internet), I had a discussion with Kurtis about the definition of an ipv6 "End Site", which is specified in section 2.9 of RIPE-655. This says:
> 2.9. End Site > > An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business or > legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that > involves: > > - that service provider assigning address space to the End User > - that service provider providing transit service for the End User to > other sites > - that service provider carrying the End User's traffic > - that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that > contains the End User's assignment Our reading of this is that each of these conditions is mandatory, i.e. logical AND, because logical OR does not make sense. Term 2.9.2 states that an ipv6 End Site is only an End Site if the service provider is providing transit service for the End User to other sites. Section 5.4 and 5.4.1 then state: > LIRs must make IPv6 assignments in accordance with the following provisions. > > End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. So the policy appears to state that an IPv6 assignment can only be issued to an end user if the end user has a transit service to more than one site, presumably ipv4 because demanding ipv6 connectivity would create a circular requirement. In other words, ipv4 connectivity to multiple different sites appears to be a mandatory prerequisite in order to get an IPv6 assignment. Could someone in the RIPE NCC please confirm that this policy is being policed as stated? And if not, when can we expect all non-compliant assignments in the RIPE NCC service region to be revoked? Nick
