[address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed May 16 18:35:32 CEST 2018
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 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180516/25aa81c2/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]