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

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

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

Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: [...] > 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. Since when has this been a requirement? Section 2.4 of ripe-699

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

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

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

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

Responding below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Martin Huněk Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:29 Para: , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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 en nombre de > Martin Huněk

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

Below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Martin Huněk Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28 Para: , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi Kai, Below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:47 Para:

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. I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract with members and

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

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

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

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

On 16.05.2018 14:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been asked to state what is the problem. > > I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here we go with all the > problems I see: > > 1) The current policy text says "Providing another entity with

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Dear colleges. I fully support the proposal because it has no negative consequences. It is very small and puts the current policy in the right order. If the new LIR can get the IPv4 network I don't see any reasons why new LIR can't get the IPv6 network. We must support the development of IPv6

[address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi all, I've been asked to state what is the problem. I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here we go with all the problems I see: 1) The current policy text says "Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)". To me this is inconsistent addresses instead of an

[address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi all, I tried to find the "mismatch" that Peter mention today in the meeting about this proposal text, however was unable to. So, if Peter or somebody else can point to anything more specific, the authors will be happy to provide thougths for alternatives to the mismatching text. Thanks!

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:05:18PM +, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Thanks Gert! > > Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! > > In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, > I've prepared an on-line diff so you can