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

On 2 maj 2006, at 11.47, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 20:12 +0200, 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. 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.
>
> PA is what it says: Provider Address space, thus address space for
> end-users provided by their provider. These get >/32+
>
> PI is provider independent, and thus for endsites, typically /48's,
> maybe upto a /44 or so.

It's more than that. PA comes with an annual cost and contact with  
the RIPE NCC. PI is free more or less for life with no guaranteed  
record keeping or guarnatee that the owner even exists. See  
experiences from ERX.

> I would keep them seperate names because of this. Though one could  
> also
> merge them. The thing is that they will, at some point, pop up both in
> the routing tables, assuming no other solution arrives, and they are
> both based on the amount of address space usage. Having the seperate
> might later on easily allow them to be seperated.

I am less concerned about what you end up calling it than I am with  
1) Keeping track of it 2) Having the owners follow the same policy

>> 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....
>
> Being LIR makes at least sure that somebody (or a consultant) at the
> organisation has some RIR clue and most likely also some routing clue.
> This is already a reasonable financial and work-load barrier.

Yes, that is the point.

>>  The 200 rule is questionable to me, it's
>> arbitrary and more or less impossible to enforce.
>
> The PA 200 is currently more a stopper for very small sites of getting
> PA space in a /32 chunk which they will never use.

Whatever it is, it's arbitrary and comes with it's own set of problems.

>>  The demand that the
>> space actually be used on the public routable Internet seems good if
>> we could define this clearly.
>
> That would be COMPLETELY silly. It's address space, no routability is
> guaranteed and then you require it to be routed onto the internet?
> What do you want, people to announce their space and then blackhole  
> it?
> ISP's request address space, for what they use it is their right. As
> long as they actually use the space they requested of course.

It's not that long ago this was the requirement for IPv4 space...

>>  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.
>
> PI is for folks wanting to be independent. Independency is most of the
> time a bit more expensive.

PI space is free for life.

> Thus IMHO in very short:
> - PA policy is for Providers, these provide access to endsites.
> - PI policy is for Endsites.

Look, it's the same routing table slot, and it's the same addresses.  
Just that one is yours to keep forever, free of charge, and no  
requirement to keep uptodate records. PI as we know it should go. Or  
be subject to the same conditions as PA space. I wouldn't be surprise  
to find ISPs using PI space....

> Pricing should be LIR-fee + annual renenewal depending on the size of
> the space received.

Yupp.

- kurtis -