Hi, sorry for entering the discussion after the end of the review phase. I've subscribed to this working group mailing (on behalf of the Tetaneutral.net LIR) list only now, upon suggestion of the RIPE technical support after one of our IPv6 PI allocation was rejected.
My understanding of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" for PI assignment so far was that a sub-allocation happens when there are new objects created in the RIPE database, associated to parts of the initial PI space. So having just addresses allocated to machines run by a client of the entity for which we requested a PI allocation would not violate the policy. Apparently it is currently more restrictive than that. We want to support a clarification of the current policy, but after reading the original proposal and Ondřej Caletka's answer, I'm a bit lost. In the case we're considering there is no need to create new objects so the current proposal for clarification would be enough to get our assignment request to be accepted. The IP addresses allocated (via some DHCPv6 server, but probably through some provisioning mechanism to keep a static allocation the addresses) by our customer will stay completely under his control, even though the systems using them are operated by his clients. This kind of activity probably qualifies as hosting (or perhaps small scale hosting). RIPE technical support suggested us to use part of our PA space instead of PI space for our customer, but IMHO this means that PI space usage is really restricted for small entities. Could someone explain what are the issues that would justify not using PI space for this kind of hosting ? Regards, -- Matthieu Herrb
