-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sascha Luck Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:31 PM To: Sander Steffann Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Hi Sander, all,
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:29:50PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
What would then be the difference between PI and PA addresses? Do you think we should get rid of that distinction completely, or is this not what you mean? I heard people talk about the distinction here at the RIPE meeting in Prague, so it seems to be a topic of discussion.
I would be in favour of abandoning the distinction altogether for ipv6.
1) In ipv4, even now, many "LIRs" use PA space as "PI space", simply because it was deemed easier to just become a LIR than go through the PI "mill". Conversely, as mentioned, a lot of PI space is used as "PA lite", this usually because it is cheaper and:
2) Many orgs have no staff trained in LIR procedures (and no time/money to change that) and would gladly hand the bureaucracy off to their friendly local LIR.
3) If address space were, simply, that, LIR functions could be handled by "qualified" orgs and their customers (be they end-users or SPs) can get routable and assignable address space; everyone wins.
4) Conceivably, if every "assignee" would have to become a member, membership fees for everyone should fall significantly; again everyone wins. It would also fulfil the requirements of 2007-01. Most small SPs and end-users wouldn't mind becoming members if cost-effective. What they don't want is the hassle of learning LIR procedures.
I couldn't think for better words, I totally agree with points 1 to 4! Regards, Mark
rgds, Sascha Luck
Thanks, Sander