[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> > I think each LIR should get a /32 and we should drop the 200
> > "customer" rule.  But that is just me...
> 
> Actually I like the "every AS should get a <network>" approach (with
> a yearly recurring fee for AS and network, to guarantee return of the
> resources as soon as the importance of having a slot in the global
> routing table doesn't outweigh the costs anymore).
> 
> "Every LIR gets a /32 (upon request), no questions asked" is a concept
> that I'm also happy with - as I have said before.  For those that are
> afraid of the landrush: limit that policy to 5.000 LIRs per region.

You can't use this kind of arbitrary limit. Doing it this way is seriously
hot water in terms of anti-trust law. In general some of the discussed (and
the current) IPv6 policy has troublesome aspects from an EU anti-trust point
of view. To be on the safe side all policy must be on pure technical,
equality and justifyable terms. RIPE NCC and its membership system may be
deemed to be an illegal monopoly under certain circumstances if equality
rules are not strictly followed and requests for membership are treated
selectively.

Also the current IPv6 policy that only ISPs can get independently routeable
address space is a fine line into anti-competitive behaviour which may be
illegal according to EU anti-trust law.

I think is very important that RIPE NCC conducts a legal assertion through
some EU anti-trust specialized law firm to assert the problematic aspects
of any current and future IPv6 policy or policy proposal.

With IPv4 there are no anti-trust problems because everyone may get any
justifyable amount of address space. AS numbers are equally available too
and only bound on the actual use of them. All this is deemed fair under
EU anti-trust law.

-- 
Andre