Hi Frederic, On 08/04/2008 07:11, "Frederic" <frederic@placenet.org> wrote: [...]
Is your opposition to this proposal based on the size of the fee or are you opposed to there being any fees at all?
1) first i talk about domain for the way to check if is still alive: you receive one mail, two.... before is deleting. and you pay where you want your domain, you have a lot of choice.
This seems to be a procedural rather than a policy matter.
About fees: When a real work is done , is normal to pay for is work. (and the amount is equal to the effort and time to made this work...).
About: IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient and may be IANA -> RIPE NCC -> PI recipient
the probleme (and is a political problem) is to have choice.
We support to have contractual link with the compagny that you decide for PI.
request must be free (and free of tax ;).
That's not for us to decide. Fees are determined by the RIPE NCC membership, not the Address Policy WG.
In our non profit company, we talk about Ipv6. and we "do not understand" why assignement are different that Ipv4. why is not possible when you have Ipv4-Pi to request right now Ipv6-PI.
"do not understand" = we understand the process, the ripe policy etc... but we do not understand why Pa assignement are available, not PI. (the answer was : we must go to policy proposal mailing list of ripe ;)
That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01. Regards, Leo Vegoda