[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive

On 1 maj 2006, at 17.43, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> Most (if not all) larger hosting providers I know are LIRs, so this
>>> question really doesn't apply.
>> Then we will arrive at "LIRs are global pain to everybody else", and
>> nothing has changed.
>
> Which is touching the core of the problem:
>
>   "can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my  
> routers"?
>
> LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do*  
> allocate
> for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and
> even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee  
> involved
> shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the  
> holder
> and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block  
> *does*
> have some costs attached".
>
> So in the end, we might want to abandon the "IPv6 PI" approaches, and
> radically change (loosen) the "IPv6 PA" policy.
>
> But *I* am not the one to decide that - I follow the discussions,  
> and try
> to extract some sort of workable (for the next few years) compromise
> between the extreme positions, which will then re-enter the  
> discussion.

I actually agree with Gert. If we for a moment ignores who has the  
right to a slot in the routing table, I think the entire notion of PI  
should be abandoned as we have it today. I want holders of address  
space to have a recurring contact with the RIRs to make sure contact  
data is accurate and the holder still exists. I further think that  
all address-space holders should be subject to the same rules. Now,  
changing the rules for what is already out there does not seem  
doable, but at least we should change for the future. If PA space  
policy is broken, let's fix that.

As for who have a right to a slot in my routing table, I think a  
minimum requirement is that they can be bothered to fulfil the duties  
as an LIR. If they can't be bothered with that, I can't be bothered  
to carry their route. So, let's move to a discussion on who should be  
able to get PA space....

I think being an LIR is a minimum requirement, that includes paying  
the associated fees. The 200 rule is questionable to me, it's  
arbitrary and more or less impossible to enforce. The demand that the  
space actually be used on the public routable Internet seems good if  
we could define this clearly. Leo told me that the NCC receives  
approx ~1400 requests a year for IPv4 PI space. I wonder how much of  
that is going to ISPs becuase it's "cheaper" than PA space...which is  
a claim that is hard to quantify.

Well, this might be enough to start a discussion...

- kurtis -