Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at
https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is
not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at
least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also
remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the
community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they
actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if
you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR,
currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros).
And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to
just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in
the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is
broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my
opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is
paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix
it in a better way by:
a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides
and the links for a diff)
b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user
c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme
which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for
taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of
end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single
contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we
address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I
proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the
"end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have
done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of
"ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to
that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do
subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do
not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site".
So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or
also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This
will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified
policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for
everyone.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Jordi
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
