I think this is an interesting proposal which requires some through
analysis.

>From a pure policy point of view I do not think a distinction between PI
and PA makes sense in a post-depletion world.
Following this reasoning it does not make sense in v6 either.

BUT

I do understand the concern that this policy change may affect the
membership fees, and I agree that this needs to be solved.

The RIPE NCC is a membership organisation that needs to cover its costs
from its membership.

If policy is changed so that RIPE NCC gets 10x members the membership fee
would have to be adjusted similarly.

Another approach would be for the RIPE NCC to change its membership fee
structure so the fee structure is policy-neutral.

So it would be interesting to have a sense not only of support/not support
but also
support if negative financial effect can be mitigated.

On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 14:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <
address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Sincerely,
Hans Petter Holen - h...@oslo.net - +47 45066054

Reply via email to