A PI assignments via LIR's should be possible (make both options possible?) if you ask me and also the costs will go via the LIR in that case. A holder off PI space should be allowed to offer PA space to clients (but no special routing for the clients!). So it is only different in the RIPE NCC whois database and not in the routing table. With kind regards, Met vriendelijke groet, Mark Scholten Stream Service Web: http://www.streamservice.nl/ E-mail: mark@streamservice.nl NOC: http://www.mynoc.eu/ NOC e-mail: noc@streamservice.nl Tel.: +31 (0)642 40 86 02 KVK: 08141074 BTW: NL104278274B01 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Kerr" <shane@time-travellers.org> To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02) On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:50:29PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote: [..]
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.
Now *THAT* is a solid policy proposal that I would be willing to support.
I agree completely. -- Shane