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

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:51:59AM +0300, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> According to current IPv4 Address Policy PI address space should be
> ASSIGNED to END USERS ONLY. ISP usually provide service for some
> (or many) organizations, i.e. contact info for some ranges may be
> very different. Although ISP is close to its customers they are
> different companies - end-users in Policy terms. ISP with PI can't
> create separate DB records and it is violate section 4.0 of Policy.
> It is violate item 5 from Your opinion quoted above too. ;)
> 
> Since PA have no such disadvantages and have a good scale capability
> it should be used by ISPs. PI is still good for small/medium
> *enterprises* which large enough to do multihoming.
And, don't forget that you even can do multihoming without PI address
space, by multihoming of PA assigment (if LIR permitted it).
The only advantage of PI's is that customer doesn't needs to be
renumbered if he leaves his primary ISP.


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

-- 
Regards,
Gennady Abramov, CCNP, AGV77-RIPE
Demos-Internet NOC
Phone: +7 (495) 737-0436    
http://www.demos.ru/address