[address-policy-wg] RE: Question

Hi Wilfried,

Thanks for the extensive comments. See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>
> Organización: UniVie - ACOnet
> Responder a: <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>
> Fecha: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:32:10 +0000
> Para: Oliver Bartels <oliver at bartels.de>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
> 
> Oliver Bartels wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:10:26 +0200, Marc van Selm wrote:
>> 
>>>> so, let's switch to discussing
>>>> 
>>>>   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> I support your argument and the proposal, too.
> 
> <taking off all hats other than a long-term 'netizen and LIR manager>
> 
> I very strongly tend to support the proposal, with some questions and
> qualifications (peculiar to the NCC) attached:
> 
> - As the proposal is worded now, it implicitely states that an applicant
> can "walk in from the street" and ask for an assignment. However, some
> time ago, we consciously supported the NCC to _exclusively_ do business
> with LIRs. Whenever an entity requests resources that are not "directly"
> tied in with an ISP, this entity has to find someone (an existing LIR)
> to act on their behalf.

Not necessarily. It is still not worded out in the proposal, but I thing
that need to be some contractual binging with RIPE NCC for the applicant to
get the PI and consequently some yearly recurrent fee.

> 
> - Looking at the text further under the heading "Expiry for Assignments"
> there is the possibility to the holder of such an assignment to become an
> LIR
> 
> 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.

That's why I think there should be a contract already, wait an see in my
slides today that comparison among both PA and PI cases.

> 
> At that point in time when this LIR does no longer need the resources, and
> has returned them properly, it can cancel the contract (and stop paying the
> annual fee)

I believe only those PI "customers" that really want to become a LIR will do
it, and probably will be a reduced numbers if/when we have an alternative
solution.

> 
> I have the very strong opinion that any entity requesting "core resources"
> from or using services from an an RIR (big address blocks, AS numbers, rev.
> delegations,...) should also contribute to the operational cost *and* be
> alerted to the responsibilties of holding/using such resources.

Agree, I didn't included that in the current proposal text, because I
assumed is something worked out by the board or whatever apart from the
proposal itself. It will be worded out in the next version.

> 
> Which then goes hand in hand with the privilege of providing guidance to
> the RIR's operation by way of e.g. voting rights in the GM.
> 
> Potentially inventing a separate fee structure or dedicated size category
> is a minor administrative exercise, I think.
> 
> Please note that the "nice" thing about that approach is to vent a lot of
> steam regarding PA(good) and PI(bad).
> 
> Very simplistically put - this proposal is a way around the (dreaded) 200
> "customer" rule, isn't it ;-)

I agree that the 200 customer rule is very bad, but not really sure if both
things should be mixed up ...

> 
> Wilfried.
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.