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

On Monday 01 May 2006 20:12, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> On 1 maj 2006, at 17.43, Gert Doering wrote:

[...]

> 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.

Good point. Why don't we approach it from that way then. We have a holder of 
an IP block. A LIR hands them out on behalf of others and is also an 
aggregation point. An org. that needs a block of its own (ignoring the 
criteria for a moment) has the same aggregation responsibility. They also 
have a payment responsibility towards the RIR (or a LIR (why not have a 
mediator role for the LIR with handing out a PI block if they like that 
business model)). So LIR or organization: same responsibilities and payment 
scheme. Getting IP space from a LIR generally means getting connectivity 
also. If you get PI space, you get no connectivity but you get that 
elsewhere.

So same rules for routing and payment but the difference is address block + 
connectivity and address block - connectivity. Then a PI policy is more or 
less a copy of the LIR policy without the posibility/requirement to allocate 
on behalf of others.

I guess the PI "owner's" transmission provider or peering partner will keep 
him sane with respect to doing the right routing thing.

Does this approach make sense?

[...]
>
> Well, this might be enough to start a discussion...
>
> - kurtis -

-- 
Marc van Selm
NATO C3 Agency
CIS Division
E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)