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
Am 20.05.2018 um 11:48 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> [Jordi] I understand your point, which has been made by several folks
> already. What I feel strange is that this is the only region out of 5 RIRs,
> having this issue. Sometime we "get accommodated" to something and eve
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 ...
> H
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 !
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
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
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 what? The people who make the d
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
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.
2400 IPv6 PI holders seem to disagree with you.
Regarding the "conversion" of the en
here is no artificial differences in between and consequently, restrictions
which are difficult to define "border lines".
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Peter
Hessler
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:17
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-po
Hi Kai, below.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Kai
'wusel' Siering
Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:11
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6
Hi Sascha,
Below in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de "Sascha
Luck [ml]"
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 15:47
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:25:27PM +0
om /32 and sign LIR contract).
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Nick Hilliard
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> But, I
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 i
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 "pr
ing LIRs"
to receive additional allocations even if SUB-ALLOCATED is not
90% assigned.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
???-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de "Sascha Luck
[ml]"
Fecha: mi??rcoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55
Para: Gert Doering
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg]
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 misremembe
2018, 12:17
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
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*
> ca
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 artific
e 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 en nombre de Jan
Hugo Prins | BetterBe
Fecha: viernes, 1
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 ho
>> > 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.
The
I will use [Jordi] to make it clear.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de
Maximilian Wilhelm
Fecha: jueves, 17 de mayo de 2018, 17:36
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
Hi Max,
Thanks for your inputs.
Responding below in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de
Maximilian Wilhelm
Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 2:38
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Anno domini 2018
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
ard.
> > De: address-policy-wg en nombre de
> Martin Huněk
> > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28
> > Para: , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>
> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
> >
> >> Hi Jordi,
>
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
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 slide
-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
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 v
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
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
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
in-line
Regards
talk to me at any time during the rest of the week.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Max
Tulyev
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 19:22
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove
Luck [ml]"
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55
Para: Gert Doering
CC:
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
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 slide
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, an
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
ha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28
> Para: , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>
> 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 t
All,
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.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +020
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
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi Jordi,
As I understand it, the
ts with /48 per
> end-site, the other with /32. Anything else?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
> -Mensaje original-
> De: address-policy-wg en nombre de
> Martin Huněk
> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01
> Para: , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>
>
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 c
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-20
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 *as
. Anything else?
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Martin
Huněk
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01
Para: , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi Jordi,
I must say that I'm s
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
