Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: > Responding below, in-line.
*PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a reader can distinguish between the original text and your answer. You current mode of answering is making this really hard. > > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de > Martin Huněk <hun...@gmail.com> > > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28 > > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> > > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > > > >> Hi Jordi, > > > >> As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for > sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure > and and PA can be further allocated or assigned. > > > > This is our actual definition. We can change it whenever we want. What > I'm asking is what is the *real* distinction among them. Forget for a minute > in contracts, fee structure and so on. There is no need to call the same with > different names if we don't want. I'm calling here for simplicity. Once we > remove the sub-assignment obstacle, there is not anymore a difference. > > Discussion should be about, if we want to / should remove such > *obstacle*. I would personally prefer that policy about PI space would stay > the same. Just RIPE NCC should be more investigative and restrictive when > assigning those. > > Being Internet policy is very difficult. If we have ways to avoid that, is an > easier way to achieve the same. Policies are for a fair distribution of the > resources, to make that distribution simpler, not to have complex policies > and then being unable to track how well anyone is behaving with them. > > > Yes, that's the idea, please see my slides. PI holders will need to > become members, maybe the fee will get an increase (something on the line of > a small one-time setup fee and later on a proportion of the cost of a /32 if > you are getting only a /48, etc., but this is for the membership to decide). > What we all win with that is a fairer cost distribution and also an easier > way to make sure that the rules are followed and nobody tricks the rules > using a PI as PA. Specially for the NCC is much simpler. > > Easy as a flat rate for every LIR. Actually this is the main problem > problem for me. LIR should by the name work as local internet registry. This > has been broken for IPv4 by IPv4 shortage. Not everyone should be forced to > be a RIPE NCC member. I'm perfectly fine with 50 EUR fee for every /48 for > those. Such organization which needs PI have no plans for assigning > > Is easier, but it is fair? This is not for the AP-WG to decide. > addresses to third parties, so why they should be LIR when they don't plan to > act as one? > > The problem is that once we accepted 2016-04, that got broken. End-users > being assigned a /48 are using that now to sub-assign addresses to other > end-users (employees, students, users of a hot-spot, etc.). Well, most people obviously don't consider this "broken" as there has been a consensus after all. And I think we really made clear that it's not a sub-assigment, which was the whole point of the last two years. > This would make IPv6 addresses less accessible. It is like LIR saying: > "Do you want to have your own addresses or more then I gave you? Go to the > RIPE NCC and pay them 1400 EUR/y! No matter what you do...". Those PI users > would either loose protection of their own space or they would had to pay 28x > more per year plus 2000 EUR sign up fee. What would do company outside of the > internet business? They would not implement IPv6, that is easy! :-) > > As said before, this is fixed in combination with the fee structure decision > by the AGM. So *no*, on the contrary, will be fairer. I think probably a 50 > Euros cost for a /48 is really too low, and may be a /32 will become cheaper, > and of course, a /20 more expensive. There are many possible models for that, > but it can be perfectly managed to avoid anyone having a requirement from a > /48 to not being able to afford it. > > >> In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special > cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space > by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also > LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point > of view. > > > > So then, again, let's roll back 2016-04, because is non-sense that > somebody instead of using the addressing space for their own organization as > end-user, is using it for a hotspot or datacenter. > > 2016-04 is not the problem, it doesn't say that you can use PI as PA. It > just allows you to use your PI range on your premise and give access to such > network to the third party. It does not allow you to give whole range to CPE. > > It allows sub-assigments, which was not the intent of the original IPv6 PI, > at all. This may be true but it's not relevent. The "original IPv6 PI" isn't here anymore and the community decided it should be the way it is *now*. Best Max
