I will use [Jordi] to make it clear.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de
Maximilian Wilhelm <m...@rfc2324.org>
Fecha: jueves, 17 de mayo de 2018, 17:36
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
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.
[Jordi] Agree, but it was not either when we created IPv6 PI, and all the
needed changes were considered in parallel.
> 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.
[Jordi] We aren't going to discuss that over and over again. Different people
who read that text has a different interpretation than the impact analysis, so
objectively it is broken.
> 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*.
[Jordi] Right, and any community member can suggest improvements again.
Best
Max
**********************************************
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.
