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

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 10:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
> At 19:01 08/05/2006, Sascha Luck wrote:
> >An arbitrary fee, specifically designed to block someone's entry into
> >*any* market, is *illegal*, at least in any non-communist country that
> >I know.
> >
[...]
> Folks are going to come to terms with the fact that the v6 routing
> table is going to have large numbers of entries.

IPv6 will be much better aggregated than ipv4, because the allocation
blocks are larger, and the requirement for LIRs to request multiple
non-contiguous blocks of space will be much lower.  This necessarily
means that ipv6 table growth is going to be lesser than the ipv4 table
growth, which has also lagged behind hardware speed increases.  What's
the problem here??

As regards cost, PI space requires RIR administration, and that costs
money.  Additionally, there needs to be a means for RIRs to legitimately
reclaim PI space.  Charging a fee appears to be good way of dealing with
both problems.  It doesn't need to be a huge amount of money, but money
needs to be involved.

I would like to suggest that after initial liaison with the local LIR,
that the end-user relationship would then revert to the RIR.  The RIR
would then be responsible for charging the end-user, and the LIR would
be removed from the equation.  

This will require time and resources to set up, and that means that
charging a fee will be completely justified.  This will fix two things
which completely fail to make sense about the current RIPE (ipv4)
assignment policy:

     1. there is no default means of returning PI space to the RIR if
        the end-user disappears
     2. the LIR is effectively charged for the assignment, even if the
        end-user moves to another LIR's domain.

Problem #1 is a really serious issue and needs to be tackled urgently.

Nick