[address-policy-wg] RE: Question

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.