On Monday 24 April 2006 13:32, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Given that setup, and the fact that (from an RIR's point of view there is not too much difference in handling when cmparing PA and PI address space, I would propose to *require* the applicant to become an LIR in the 1st place.
Even though I am practically a member of the "PI for Everyone" camp, I fully agree with this proposal, although I would just change policy so as to require anyone (who isn't just a PA end-user) to simply become a member of a RIR. They don't necessarily need to be a full LIR as they are not likely to ever sub-assign PA space. This should assure equal treatment for all IP users (as much as that is possible) and, as Wilfried states, gives them more of a 'voice' in the address management community. Maybe some of the additional income could also be funnelled into offering training to those that may require it. The downside is that such a policy would be open to challenge as a 'RIR monopoly' and to the establishment, by legislation, of competing 'IP address providers' such as has happened with the DNS system. The thing to keep in mind is, that the goal should be to increase adoption of IPv6 in the first place, otherwise all this is is an academic exercise... rgds, s.