[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

Hi Hank!

This story is about PA/LIR, where (again, in the theory) all is quite
simply. No money -> closing contarct (as in terms of it) -> getting back
IPs.

But. If there is PI space (and ASes not associated with LIR company) -
there is also third party: end-user. He shouldn't  have any  troubles
if  LIR goes out of business or  became  unlucky in it.

I have a large experience in providing PI/AS (even own a LIR with
primary service is PI assignment i  ex-USSR).

My opinion is:

1. PI is a GOOD thing.
1a. It stimulates small and medium business, providing Internet in
regions with a lack of money. Yes, EUR2000 really can be a yearly
turnover of small Internet company here.
1b. It conserves IP space (people do request as many space as they
really need, not /21 "because it is given at LIR startup")
2. PI and AS SHOULD be billed in the regular basis (yearly, quarterly or
so). This pervents dead IP space beeing locked.
3. There shoud be an mechanism (NOT mntner as it is now) to suspend and
remove address space if there is no payments. Again, _not_ LIR's mntner
in object.
4. There should be clear and simply mechanism ("what-to-do,
step-by-step") how PI end-user can change LIR if something goes wrong
(LIR is out of business, and even LIR goes mad).
4a. This mechanism should be quite easy and clear so anyone  can get rid
in it in ten minutes, therefore  there should be something to stop user
switching between LIRs looking where is cheaper (and in practice,
killing the market by some inadequate players will do demping).
5. Of course, RIPE (LIR?) should check actuality of contact information
of that kind of objects. Or if not really check - have an ability to
suspend objects if this information is invalid (i.e. RIPE can't contact
user with that information).

Yes, I think there should be "suspended" objects: not visible in the
database (or visible with some flag, but not routeable - without route
objects or so). These objects can be returned to life in some cases
(user at least payed a bill, provided actual contacts or so) or wiped in
some other cases.

Maybe, we should learn things from domain name registering systems.

If it is interesting, I can do something like presentation or policy
draft? So it is a good topic to talk at the RIPE meeting anyway ;)

Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Max Tulyev wrote:
>
>> Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
>>> Max, how say that fees will be equal? As for me, PI/24+ASN should have
>>> yearly fee acceptable for most small companies. If they really need it,
>>> they will pay for it. Once payments stoped - resources returned and
>>> ready to reassignment.
>>
>> Seems to be very reasonable. For example, as it was a long before.
>
> Once payment stops resources are not returned (as far as my example
> shows below).  See:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ncc-services-wg/2004/msg00100.html
>
> for an example I've been tracking for 5 years now (company bankrupt).
>
> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt
> shows the following still:
> il.doarnet
>     DoarNet Ltd.
>
>     19981211    212.77.128/19   ALLOCATED PA
>
> So in theory your idea sounds nice.  In practice it doesn't work.
>
> Regards,
> -Hank Nussbacher
> http://www.interall.co.il
>


-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)