Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi, [...]
What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem to be it.
For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing work whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably the most objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), neither I plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to me". I only had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I started playing with IPv6.
Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When anybody submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start with this kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not really smart.
Now it's getting personal, which I really don't approve. After read throught the whole thread it seems that no one else asking the same or similar questions is getting the same treatment, so I have to ask myself why I do.
So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing?
I don't want to repeat myself or others.
Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the overall discussion.
Even *IF* the fee issue wouldn't be touched we would have the issue that some entities - like the RIPE NCC - cannot ever be a RIPE member, hence the use of PI space at the meetings. This will apply to others. To sum this up: I'm totally against this change as it *will* create a whole bunch of new problems, obviously isn't anywhere near a possible (even rought) consensus and I don't see a positive cost / gain ratio. Best Max