[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Jan 16 14:47:31 CET 2008
On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: Hi Shane, > Marco, > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 02:09:59PM +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> >> On Jan 16, 2008, at 12:23 PM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> >> <michael.dillon at bt.com > wrote: >> >>> The need for such extranet addresses is a good reason for >>> RIPE to allow PI allocations/assignments of IPv6 addresses >>> but 2008-01 is the wrong way to go about it. >>> >>> Here is my wish list for IPv6 PI: >>> >>> - No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6. >>> - special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders >>> - contract signed between RIPE and PI holders that covers fee >>> payments, and revocation/return of address blocks >>> - special known superblock from which all PI allocations are made >>> so that people can manage their filters >>> - /48 minimum PI allocation but larger aggregate is also possible >>> - contact every IPv4 PI holder by email and inform them of the >>> new rules for IPv6 PI allocations >>> >>> In my opinion that should be followed by another policy change >>> which requires RIPE membership, annual fee payment and a signed >>> contract for any future ASN assignments or IPv4 PI address blocks. >> >> Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from >> becoming a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ? > > The difference is that right now there is a number of assignments that > are "orphaned". > > There was a relationship: > > RIPE NCC -> LIR -> end user > > But either the relationship between the RIPE NCC and the LIR ended, or > the relationship between the LIR and the end user ended. In either > case, now there is no way to manage the use of the number resource. > > By simplifying the relationship: > > RIPE NCC -> end user > > We know the status of the space at all times. That was already clear, but if, as an end-user, I have to get a contract with the NCC to obtain PI space, there ain't much difference to becoming an LIR. There could be some difference in cost, but that would only mean that as a small ISP it might be cheaper to get PI space. >> Next to that I see a huge increase in administrative load for the >> NCC which could result in bigger financial risks which in turn ends >> up at the LIR's. > > Depends on how it is done. There are millions of domain names, and > these only cost 10 euros a year. :) And how many get cancelled each year because they are not being paid for, and if they do it's much easier to remove a domain name from the internet. Unless there would be an active system with signatures it's very hard to make sure cancelled PI/PA blocks will disappear from the DFZ. Second to that, most TLD's also use a tiered solution where as an end- user you need to get in contact with a member/reseller to get a name registered. Grt, -- MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]