Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Maximilian Wilhelm]

Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:

Hi,

[...]
>> What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem
>> to be it.

> For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing 
> work whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably 
> the most objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), 
> neither I plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to 
> me". I only had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I 
> started playing with IPv6.

> Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I 
> can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When 
> anybody submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start 
> with this kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not 
> really smart.

Now it's getting personal, which I really don't approve. After read
throught the whole thread it seems that no one else asking the same or
similar questions is getting the same treatment, so I have to ask
myself why I do.

> So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, 
> different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing?

I don't want to repeat myself or others.

> Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM 
> could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if 
> we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the 
> overall discussion.

Even *IF* the fee issue wouldn't be touched we would have the issue
that some entities - like the RIPE NCC - cannot ever be a RIPE member,
hence the use of PI space at the meetings. This will apply to others.

To sum this up: I'm totally against this change as it *will* create a
whole bunch of new problems, obviously isn't anywhere near a possible
(even rought) consensus and I don't see a positive cost / gain ratio.

Best
Max

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Kai 'wusel' Siering]

Am 20.05.2018 um 11:57 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> Once more ... this is not the point. I mention it as one possible choice 
> (change fees or not, change contract or not).

I looks like there's not much positive feedback to your »proposal«: I suggest 
to bury it ...
 
> However, we can change the policy so that both PA and PI are "allocations" 
> and there is no artificial differences in between and consequently, 
> restrictions which are difficult to define "border lines".

To me it seems there's not much interesst in changing this, especially as that 
would pave the way to a usage pattern that seems to be rather unwanted in the 
community (ISPing off End User address space).

Regards,
-kai

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Dominik Nowacki]

Dear Peers,
I think it’s clear this will never reach a consensus. What are we still 
discussing here ? There’s nothing left to discuss any more. It’s a waste of 
valuable time.

And for the record, I’m strongly against the proposal, the current system works.

Had a lovely Sunday evening everyone !

With Kind Regards,
Dominik Nowacki

Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. 
Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, 
London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may 
monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of 
security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and 
is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the 
intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. 
Please notify ab...@clouvider.net of this e-mail 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete 
this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor 
any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or 
omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

On 20 May 2018, at 17:54, Kai 'wusel' Siering 
> wrote:

Am 20.05.2018 um 11:02 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just lazy 
people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same situation.

Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts, there 
are two choices:
1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI 
holders to the end-user contract

Luckily, it wouldn't be the "same way"; this time, PIv6 address holders are 
already bound by the »RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which 
may be amended from time to time«. For IPv4 assignments that predated the PI/PA 
distinction, e. g. from the early years like 1992/1993, nothing like that was 
agreed on (check ripe-072, ripe-104), so NCC's blackmailing ("sign this 
contract or we'll redistribute your used v4 space") was, trying to be polite 
here, a bit on the weird side.

2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI and 
PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign end 
user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract).

So, what would be the advantage? Wouldn't this simply create the incentive to 
have dirt-cheap ISPs running on End User address, which to prevent seems to be 
the motivation to start this discussion initially?

Regards,
-kai

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Once more ... this is not the point. I mention it as one possible choice 
(change fees or not, change contract or not). Even if this is not up to the WG, 
is something that we need to explore as well.

However, we can change the policy so that both PA and PI are "allocations" and 
there is no artificial differences in between and consequently, restrictions 
which are difficult to define "border lines".

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Peter 
Hessler <phess...@theapt.org>
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:17
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
:Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
:> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
:
:Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".
:
:> As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees 
so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay 
for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know 
that, it is something that the NCC should calculate).
:
:I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So 
without a change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope 
here –, the proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 
1400,-- EUR/year or abandon their assignment.
:
:Regards,
:-kai
:
:

If my choices are to pay 28x my current fee or abandon using IPv6, I
will abandon using IPv6.  Quite simply, I can't afford it and **it isn't
worth it**.

Since I would like to use IPv6, I am very strongly against this proposal.


-- 
Law of the Perversity of Nature:
You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the
bread to butter.





**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Kai, below.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Kai 
'wusel' Siering <wusel...@uu.org>
Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:11
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,

Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".

[Jordi] You're taking the tittle literally. If this is a problem I will find a 
better one "remove differentiation between PI and PA" or whatever. I think 
across the emails it has been clear. What I think is needed is to remove the 
fact that PI is assignment and PA is allocation and the "consequences of that". 
Both should be the same, regardless of fees, contract type, etc.

> As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees 
so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay 
for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know 
that, it is something that the NCC should calculate).

I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So 
without a change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope 
here –, the proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 
1400,-- EUR/year or abandon their assignment.


[Jordi] Please read the other emails. Not an issue if that's the difficulty. 
The goal is that everything is "allocation". There are many possible ways to do 
that from the AGM perspective, and even if we don't decide that here, we must 
discuss it here because it provide "light" on the possible avenues.

Regards,
-kai






**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just lazy 
people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same situation.

Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts, there 
are two choices:
1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI 
holders to the end-user contract
2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI and 
PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign end 
user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract).


Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not
> really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we
> are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't
> worked to resolve that problem.

You're misremembering the problem.  The reason for the IPv6 PI policy
was not that it was going to help deployment of IPv6, but instead that
the lack of easily available, provider-portable IPv6 address space would
create unnecessary obstacles to deployment.  This hasn't changed.

> Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means
> simplicity for both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a
> (marginal) administrative cost decrease, but also simplification for
> the policies, less interpretation errors, less people trying to bend
> the policies to the limit, etc., etc.
There are ~2600 IPv6 PI assignments associated with ~2450 individual 
organisations.  Your proposal seems to require that these 
end-user-to-LIR contracts are replaced with end-user-to-RIPENCC contracts.

Can you elaborate on how you see this being handled? And what would the 
RIPE NCC do if an end-user declined to change?

Nick




**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Peter Hessler]

On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
:Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
:> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
:
:Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".
:
:> As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so 
they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for 
the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know 
that, it is something that the NCC should calculate).
:
:I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So without 
a change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope here –, 
the proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 1400,-- 
EUR/year or abandon their assignment.
:
:Regards,
:-kai
:
:

If my choices are to pay 28x my current fee or abandon using IPv6, I
will abandon using IPv6.  Quite simply, I can't afford it and **it isn't
worth it**.

Since I would like to use IPv6, I am very strongly against this proposal.


-- 
Law of the Perversity of Nature:
You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the
bread to butter.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Kai 'wusel' Siering]

Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,

Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".

> As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so 
> they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay 
> for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't 
> know that, it is something that the NCC should calculate).

I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So without a 
change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope here –, the 
proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 1400,-- EUR/year 
or abandon their assignment.

Regards,
-kai

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:25:27PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:

I don't see why this would mean "lower" number of LIRs?

Actually, I think will be the contrary. I think most of the end-users will 
become LIRs, especially if the AGM makes a smart move about how to attract them 
(fee scheme, contract, etc.).


I don't see why this would be desirable. If every end-user had to
become a LIR, it would blow the NCC up into this humongous
bureaucratic apparatus and, perhaps more importantly, make it a
regional monopoly in the truest sense - every business and person
needing internet resources would be *forced* to deal with the
NCC.


I don't see also why this would create more disaggregation.
The actual end-users will become LIRs. The actual LIRs will remain as LIRs. 
Both of them will announce the same addressing space.
In summary: Who needs to have stable addresses and avoid renumbering if 
changing ISP or data center, or whatever, will be an LIRs.


We are coming at this from opposite sides. What I would like to
see is that businesses and people who need (portable) resources
don't *have to* become LIRs. Instead they contact their friendly
neighbourhood sponsoring LIR and deal through them. 


What I'm missing from your rationale for having those opinions?


Many of the LIRs in existence today *do not want to be LIRs*.
They have become LIRs mostly because it was the only way for them
to get (more) IPv4 resources or they needed portable resources.
These LIRs have no interest and, often, no skills in dealing with
the RIPE NCC.

What I am proposing is, in essence, that LIRs become "sponsoring
LIRs" for all resources. No more difference between "ASSIGNED PA"
and "ALLOCATED PI", everything becomes, for practical purposes,
"SUB-ALLOCATED"

This enables LIRs with an interest to become resource management
services for those who do *not* have this interest. 
End Users can choose a LIR to provide these services, if they are

not happy with it, they can chose another and -that's the
important difference - take their resources with them without
having to renumber. Or, if they so chose, can become LIRs
themselves. 


I've actually heard, as an argument for NAT66, that the users in
question want to deploy that so they can avoid renumbering when
changing connectivity providers. This could be avoided if those
resources became portable.

It should also have a positive effect on ripedb data quality if
all resources are under the care of LIRs with the skills and an
interest in their management.

It reduces harm to end users' operations if a LIR is shut down
for whatever reason. End users can simply switch to another
sponsoring LIR.

It may solve the issues that some large (governmental) orgs are
having with policies and distributed resource management.


There may be a de-aggregation effect, this can possibly be
mitigated by minimum sub-allocation sizes though that may be
wasteful. 


"SUB-ALLOCATED PA" already does a lot of this but a few changes
are needed:

- make SUB-ALLOCATED resources portable

- change the subsequent allocation criteria to take account of
  SUB-ALLOCATED space, so it is possible for "sponsoring LIRs"
to receive additional allocations even if SUB-ALLOCATED is not
90% assigned.

rgds,
Sascha Luck


???-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck 
[ml]" <a...@c4inet.net>
Fecha: mi??rcoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55
Para: Gert Doering <g...@space.net>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

   Hi Gert,

   On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
   >> In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP"
   >> function.
   >
   >Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it
   >is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there.  We've tried
   >a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights"
   >and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated...

   I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It
   doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes
   the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User.
   (Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR")

   This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they
   neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.

   The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot
   higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their
   end users.

   The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I
   think that particular boat sailed a long time ago...

   rgds,
   Sascha Luck

   >
   >(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removin

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Nick Hilliard]

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:

But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not
really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we
are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't
worked to resolve that problem.


You're misremembering the problem.  The reason for the IPv6 PI policy
was not that it was going to help deployment of IPv6, but instead that
the lack of easily available, provider-portable IPv6 address space would
create unnecessary obstacles to deployment.  This hasn't changed.


Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means
simplicity for both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a
(marginal) administrative cost decrease, but also simplification for
the policies, less interpretation errors, less people trying to bend
the policies to the limit, etc., etc.
There are ~2600 IPv6 PI assignments associated with ~2450 individual 
organisations.  Your proposal seems to require that these 
end-user-to-LIR contracts are replaced with end-user-to-RIPENCC contracts.


Can you elaborate on how you see this being handled? And what would the 
RIPE NCC do if an end-user declined to change?


Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Gert,

This sounds strange to me, specially the "laws" bit.

Unless I'm wrong on this, the other RIRs don't have that "special end-user 
contract", the membership agreement is the same, and never heard about a single 
case which it was a trouble at all.

Having somebody that do the paperwork for becoming an LIR and any associated 
work, is something that is being done already today for many companies, so I 
don't think there is no reason for that being a showstopper. In fact, this is 
something very common in many business activities (and just for our sector).

Last, but not least, we could keep the "end-user" agreement if this is a real 
problem, but still unify PI and PA.

Basically the policy text will say "If you have a need for end-site addressing, 
such as /48, you will get it *allocated* under the end-user agreement. If you 
have a need for /32 ... etc ... you will get it *allocated* under the LIR 
agreement".

I think the point that need to be clear is that by removing IPv6 PI, my intent 
is not to create troubles to anyone, but on the other way around, to simplify 
and to avoid complex policy text that disallows (because it is assigment 
instead of allocation), things that *allocations* allows ... which create 
artificial barriers and bending the rules or their interpretation.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Gert 
Doering <g...@space.net>
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 12:17
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Hi,

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single*
> category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing
> size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an artificial
> name.

Speaking for my PI-holding (IPv4 and IPv6) customers, most of them do
not *want* to be a LIR.  They have a nice contract with a local company
(us) that does all the paperwork for them, speaks their local language,
they can visit our office if needed, we handle the international money
transfer bit, etc.

Some *cannot* become a LIR due to governing laws that disallow them 
to join any sort of association.

So "doing away with end-users that have their own space and are not 
a RIPE member" is not going to fly.

Gert Doering
-- speaking as sponsoring LIR admin
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael 
Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279




**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single*
> category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing
> size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an artificial
> name.

Speaking for my PI-holding (IPv4 and IPv6) customers, most of them do
not *want* to be a LIR.  They have a nice contract with a local company
(us) that does all the paperwork for them, speaks their local language,
they can visit our office if needed, we handle the international money
transfer bit, etc.

Some *cannot* become a LIR due to governing laws that disallow them 
to join any sort of association.

So "doing away with end-users that have their own space and are not 
a RIPE member" is not going to fly.

Gert Doering
-- speaking as sponsoring LIR admin
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Jan,

We introduced IPv6 PI (I was the author of that policy proposal), because (in 
this order):
1) There was a claim for it considering that this will help the deployment of 
IPv6 (your claim for multihoming)
2) It existed in IPv4, so people wanted the same ...
3) It was a way to avoid creating an IPv6 NAT (somehow your mention about 
internal addresses)
4) ... there were many other minor considerations at that time

However, I always stated clearly when I was presenting my own proposal that I 
was "not" personally in favor of that, and I was only doing that because the 
community considered that need.

But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not really an 
obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we are lacking "more" IPv6 
deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't worked to resolve that problem.

Now, in your text, you mention "but would never allocate to 3rd party networks 
because they would only use it internally for their own business" ... right, 
and we broke it with the 2016-4 ...

My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single* category of 
LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing size needs, because PI and 
PA are the same, it is just an artificial name.

As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so they 
pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for the 
"real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know that, 
it is something that the NCC should calculate).

So, lets thing for a moment that 50 Euros for an ASN, 50 for an IPv4 /22 and 50 
for an IPv6 /48 (which in total is 150 Euros), it is really covering the yearly 
cost of the NCC to maintain those services. Maybe it is fair to just change 
that for 150 Euros (so no change) for LIRs which have a single end-site, but 
now they don't have restrictions and we avoid discussions related to if a 
sub-assignment is correct or not, if it is only a single address or several, 
and so on.

If instead of that, the NCC tell us that the real cost for maintaining those 
services is 200 Euros, it will be fair that the LIRs aren't subsidizing the 
end-users, so there is an LIR category for "end-users" that becomes 200 Euros 
(instead of 150), and then of course, the LIRs cost will drop a bit from 1.400 
Euros to maybe around 1.000 euros or whatever is the calculation that the NCC 
shows is the correct one (this will depend on how many LIRs we have today vs. 
end-users and how much is the expected increase in each category in the coming 
years, etc.).

Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means simplicity for 
both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a (marginal) administrative 
cost decrease, but also simplification for the policies, less interpretation 
errors, less people trying to bend the policies to the limit, etc., etc.

It is up to the NCC to provide possible fee schemes to accommodate several 
possibilities, in order the ensure a long-term sustainability of the system and 
also a *fair* distribution of the real costs.

For example, it may be interesting also to consider if the "setup" fee should 
be really 2.000 euros, or something different (even less than half), if we have 
a double number of LIRs (when putting together a single contract for all), of 
if this one-time setup fee must be much lower to accommodate the "real" 
one-time-setup cost, and then pay just 10 extra (just an example) euros per 
year in the yearly fee, which is probably more interesting in terms of 
"long-term" NCC sustainability.

Last comment. I can't believe that and end-user, even a small company, is 
willing to pay to have a BGP router and capable staff (or external services to 
manage that), and has *an* issue to cover a few extra euros per year in case 
the (to be defined) "LIR fee for end-users" is 200 or even 500 Euros (again 
just examples) instead of 150 Euros.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Jan 
Hugo Prins | BetterBe <jpr...@betterbe.com>
Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 12:30
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

I think we introduced IPv6 PI because we needed to be able to give
address space to entities that only need internal address space, want to
be multi-homed, but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because
they would only use it internally for their own business (for example a
SAAS provider hosting it's own product inhouse).

When we stop allowing IPv6 PI we would force those entities to, either
become a LIR and pay a lot more for the same IPv6 address space, or they
will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea
I think.

Jan Hugo

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe]

I think we introduced IPv6 PI because we needed to be able to give
address space to entities that only need internal address space, want to
be multi-homed, but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because
they would only use it internally for their own business (for example a
SAAS provider hosting it's own product inhouse).

When we stop allowing IPv6 PI we would force those entities to, either
become a LIR and pay a lot more for the same IPv6 address space, or they
will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea
I think.

Jan Hugo


On 05/16/2018 02:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 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.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Kind regards

Jan Hugo Prins
/DevOps Engineer/

Auke Vleerstraat 140 E
7547 AN Enschede
CC no. 

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Havard Eidnes]

>> > 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.
>
> I will use [Jordi] to make it clear.

Then how far does that extend/apply?

Speaking for myself, you are significantly increasing your chances of
being summarily ignored if you're using difficult-to-decipher quoting
conventions.

Best regards,

- Håvard

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

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 
chea

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Max,

Thanks for your inputs.

Responding below in-line.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de 
Maximilian Wilhelm <m...@rfc2324.org>
Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 2:38
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:

Hi,

> PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.

They are not.

Please, enumerate what are the differences, so we can check one by one.

> There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6.

Not true.

Sorry, can you point me to the RFC that points to that assertion?


PI and PA are sliced from different pools which may have (I didn't evaluate
that by myself yet) different routing policies in the DFZ. At least
I've seen filters or BCOPs for PA space differ from PI space in the
means of what prefix lengths to accept.

If you look into my presentation you will see that I've already thought about 
that, so the NCC can continue with the same operational practices as per today:

" Actual IPv6 PI assignments are made from a different block. Even if it is an 
operational NCC issues, I believe it still makes sense for the NCC to keep that 
structure (a block for ISPs with /32 and bigger allocations) and another block 
for /48 and bigger allocations (may be up to /33 for organizations/end-sites). 
Also keep using sparse allocation for both, and allow, while possible that 
further allocations are made from an adjacent address block."


> As I already explained before, the same way the AGM created the end-user 
contract and the corresponding fee, they should be a new fee structure within 
the LIR contract, for those that have one of few /48s instead of /32 or /29, 
etc.

And there you are mixing GM and AP-WG again. This is neither a topic
for this WG, nor do I think that there would be any possible
consensus about a change in charging schema.

I know, but BOTH need to be worked somehow with some parallelism. I'm going to 
say this once more: We didn't have the end-user contract before I proposed the 
IPv6 PI, then the board and the AGM did the rest. So there is not any issue 
about repeating that.


And basicly I'm with some other here:

What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem
to be it.

For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing work 
whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably the most 
objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), neither I 
plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to me". I only 
had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I started playing 
with IPv6.

Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I 
can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When anybody 
submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start with this 
kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not really smart.

So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, 
different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing?

Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM 
could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if 
we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the 
overall discussion.


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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Maximilian Wilhelm]

Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:

Hi,

> PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.

They are not.

> There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6.

Not true.

PI and PA are sliced from different pools which may have (I didn't evaluate
that by myself yet) different routing policies in the DFZ. At least
I've seen filters or BCOPs for PA space differ from PI space in the
means of what prefix lengths to accept.

> As I already explained before, the same way the AGM created the end-user 
> contract and the corresponding fee, they should be a new fee structure within 
> the LIR contract, for those that have one of few /48s instead of /32 or /29, 
> etc.

And there you are mixing GM and AP-WG again. This is neither a topic
for this WG, nor do I think that there would be any possible
consensus about a change in charging schema.

And basicly I'm with some other here:

What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem
to be it.

Best
Max

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Maximilian Wilhelm]

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Hans Petter Holen]

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, 

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Max Tulyev]

Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it
then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence,

I am against this.


16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing. There is only one type of 
Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6.

As I already explained before, the same way the AGM created the end-user 
contract and the corresponding fee, they should be a new fee structure within 
the LIR contract, for those that have one of few /48s instead of /32 or /29, 
etc.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Kai 
'wusel' Siering <wusel...@uu.org>
Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 22:06
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:

> […]
> I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
> […]
> Thoughts?

To put it in a nutshell, I think you throw out the baby with bath water 
here: you're not simply "merging the requirements for PI and PA in a single 
policy", you'd take away any means for a non-LIR to request non-PA IP space. 
Moreover, you intend to force any current IPv6 PI holder into either becoming 
an LIR (which amounts to a 28fold cost increase: 50 => 1400 EUR/year) or to 
abandon the PIv6 space they build there infrastructure on. I don't yet 
understand what's your agenda, but I'm deeply concerned.

Anyway: I oppose this proposal. It would cause a lot harm for no obvious 
reason.
-kai







**
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Kai 'wusel' Siering]

Moin,

am 16.05.2018 um 18:55 schrieb Sascha Luck [ml]:
> This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they
> neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.
>
> The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot
> higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their
> end users.

If there would be only v6, I'd agree, but given that v4 refuses to die,
IPv6 is a far lesser incentive to become an LIR compared to the /22
shot of IPv4. I don't expect the number of LIRs in the RIPE area to
come down for the next few years. When the past-last-/8 pool has
finally dried up, plus 2 years (holding time), well, yes, maybe.

>
> The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I
> think that particular boat sailed a long time ago... 

I certainly feels that way.

Regards,
-kai

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Kai 'wusel' Siering]

Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:

> […]
> I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
> […]
> Thoughts?

To put it in a nutshell, I think you throw out the baby with bath water here: 
you're not simply "merging the requirements for PI and PA in a single policy", 
you'd take away any means for a non-LIR to request non-PA IP space. Moreover, 
you intend to force any current IPv6 PI holder into either becoming an LIR 
(which amounts to a 28fold cost increase: 50 => 1400 EUR/year) or to abandon 
the PIv6 space they build there infrastructure on. I don't yet understand 
what's your agenda, but I'm deeply concerned.

Anyway: I oppose this proposal. It would cause a lot harm for no obvious reason.
-kai

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Responding below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
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, 18:29
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

in-line

Regards,
Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> Below, in-line.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>  
> 
> -Mensaje original-
> 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.

>> I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same 
contract with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer 
that.
> 
>> I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for 
different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive 
ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On 
the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE 
DB, of course.
> 
> There is not anymore an obligation, for many years, to have multihoming. 
So, no difference here.

Sure it is not an obligation, it is just my understanding what is meant by 
current policy or what it should mean.

>> By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or 
you would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most 
of the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only 
future, what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be 
a member in such future?
> 
> 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?

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.).

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 interne

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Max,

I will not have any problem if you need to write something unpolite just to 
explain much better what is your view.

What I will not help in any discussion is just responding "I'm for" or "I'm 
against" without further explanations.

Otherwise, feel free to talk to me at any time during the rest of the week.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Max 
Tulyev <presid...@ukraine.su>
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 19:22
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it
then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence,

I am against this.


16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
> 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 prohi

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Max Tulyev]

Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it
then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence,

I am against this.


16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

Hi Gert,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP"
function.


Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it
is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there.  We've tried
a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights"
and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated...


I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It
doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes
the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User.
(Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR")

This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they
neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.

The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot
higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their
end users. 


The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I
think that particular boat sailed a long time ago...

rgds,
Sascha Luck



(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI
label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block
for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?)

Gert Doering
   -- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:29:32PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> rather than making policy successively more dense, technically
> prescriptive and complicated, is it not way past time to abolish
> the PA/PI distinction altogether? 
> In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP"
> function.

Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it
is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there.  We've tried
a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights"
and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated...

(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI
label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block 
for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?)

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Martin Huněk]

in-line

Regards,
Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> Below, in-line.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>  
> 
> -Mensaje original-
> 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. 

>> I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same 
>> contract with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can 
>> answer that.
> 
>> I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for 
>> different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive 
>> ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. 
>> On the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing 
>> RIPE DB, of course.
> 
> There is not anymore an obligation, for many years, to have multihoming. So, 
> no difference here.

Sure it is not an obligation, it is just my understanding what is meant by 
current policy or what it should mean.

>> By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you 
>> would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most 
>> of the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only 
>> future, what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to 
>> be a member in such future?
> 
> 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 addresses to third 
parties, so why they should be LIR when they don't plan to act as one?

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! :-)

>> 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.

> I'm more and more convinced as we exchange emails on 

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
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.


I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract 
with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer that.

I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for 
different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive 
ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On 
the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE 
DB, of course.

There is not anymore an obligation, for many years, to have multihoming. So, no 
difference here.

By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you 
would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most of 
the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only future, 
what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be a 
member in such future?

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.


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.

I'm more and more convinced as we exchange emails on this, that either we 
clarify very well what is a sub-assignment (and if you follow the last couple 
of emails on that discussion you will see how difficult may be to clarify that 
with a "short" text), or we just put all in the same "class" of addressing 
space.


Sincerely,
Martin

Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that.
> 
> I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also 
large non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question.
> 
> Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of 
organizations.
> 
> I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have 
both into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to 
have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small 
different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much simpler).
> 
> Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean 
specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy?
> 
> The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per 
end-site, the other with /32. Anything else?
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>  
> 
> -Mensaje original-
> 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, 16:01
> 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,
> 
> I must say that I'm strongly against this propo

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Martin Huněk]

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.

I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract with 
members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer that.

I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for different 
things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive 
ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On 
the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE 
DB, of course.

By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you would 
had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most of the new 
members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only future, what 
would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be a member in 
such future?

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.

Sincerely,
Martin

Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that.
> 
> I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large 
> non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question.
> 
> Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of 
> organizations.
> 
> I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both 
> into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to 
> have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small 
> different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much 
> simpler).
> 
> Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean 
> specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy?
> 
> The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per 
> end-site, the other with /32. Anything else?
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>  
> 
> -Mensaje original-
> 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, 16:01
> 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,
> 
> I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal.
> 
> Reasons:
> - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for 
> canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space
> - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP 
> organization could be legitimate user of PI space
> - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that 
> concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused
> 
> Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the 
> ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of 
> IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, 
> it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC 
> because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI 
> in the LIR portal).
> 
> Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) 
> specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step 
> by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to 
> ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4.
> 
> There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use 
> current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so 
> it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be 
> a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same 
> way.
> 
> Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. 
> Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone 
> asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and 
> ask LIR why they want to ask for PI.
> 
> Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for 
> LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR 
> portal.
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Patrick Velder wrote:
> I am against the proposal, but I agree to #4 (from the IPv4 view, too).

Fee structure is unfortunately something we cannot fix (or even work on)
here in the APWG.  Fees are decided by the AGM - and the "one size fits
all" fee came due to member request & vote (we started with a scaled fee by
membership size).

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Patrick Velder]

Hi,

I am against the proposal, but I agree to #4 (from the IPv4 view, too).

Regards
Patrick


On 16.05.2018 14:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg 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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg wrote:
> 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.

In IPv4, the PI policy is different and explicitely allows numbering of
transit networks to customer sites (= "my router and their router") from
PI space.  So running an ISP on PI space is *not* "abusing the policy".

Which has been pointed out quite a few times in APWG sessions and nobody 
saw the need to go for a change here (and since IPv4 PI is now gone, I'm not 
sure it's a useful usage of the WG's time to spend it on IPv4 PI)

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg]

Hi Martin,

I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that.

I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large 
non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question.

Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of 
organizations.

I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both 
into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to have 
a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small 
different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much simpler).

Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean 
specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy?

The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per 
end-site, the other with /32. Anything else?

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
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, 16:01
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,

I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal.

Reasons:
- Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for 
canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space
- Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP 
organization could be legitimate user of PI space
- Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that 
concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused

Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the 
ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of 
IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, 
it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC 
because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in 
the LIR portal).

Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) 
specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by 
step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask 
for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4.

There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current 
PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should 
not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is 
broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way.

Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. 
Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks 
for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR 
why they want to ask for PI.

Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's 
"downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal.

IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users 
became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a 
local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the 
IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by 
pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one.

Best regards
Martin

Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> 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.
  

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

[Martin Huněk]

Hi Jordi,

I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal.

Reasons:
- Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling 
IPv4 PI was simply not enough space
- Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP 
organization could be legitimate user of PI space
- Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that 
concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused

Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the 
ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of 
IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, 
it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC 
because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in 
the LIR portal).

Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) specifically 
to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by step because 
they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask for PI just 
because they use to do that for the IPv4.

There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current PI 
space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should not 
be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is broken 
because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way.

Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. Like if 
the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks for PI, 
RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR why 
they want to ask for PI.

Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's 
"downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal.

IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users became a 
LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a local 
internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the IPv6 PI 
would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by pushing 
more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one.

Best regards
Martin

Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> 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