Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
I support PI for IPv6 but I personally do not like the section:
"Expiry for Assignments:
Nor do I. In particular I am missing a common understanding of how this is supposed to work in real life, regarding the path of submitting a request. Both from the point of view of a potential conflict of interest if we assume the same arrangement like for v4-PI, i.e. find a friendly LIR in good standing and ask them to submit the request on their account. This particularly delicate if the *assignment* size would remain at /32 as proposed, equal to the LIRs *allocation* size. And this approach of requesting resources "by proxy" has unwanted side effects like financial implications or loss of contact with the holder of the PI block. One of the real show-stoppers for me is (quote from the Proposal): "Any organisations that want to avoid renumbering would, at this time, be able to opt to become an LIR, if they qualify, and be allocated the same prefix." I am sorry, this doesn't cut it. So here is another formal change request: "An organisation that intends to request IPv6 PI Addresses under "this" policy have to become a Member of the RIPE NCC. The address assignment remains valid as long as the ... you know :-)" Cancelling the contractual relationship with the NCC should have the "usual" consequences, including those still to be developed like expiration of the digital certificate or RevDNS service, or address recalamtion, or... Btw, - what we are doing here is sort of opening a (controlled?) way around the 200 Customer Rule. Wilfried.