[address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08

Hi Wilfried,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>
> Organización: UniVie - ACOnet
> Responder a: <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>
> Fecha: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:51:16 +0000
> Para: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> CC: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net"
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08
> 
> Leo Vegoda wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jordi,
>> 
>> On Jan 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Leo,
>>> 
>>> Yes, good point, that's the idea.
>> 
>> 
>> Are you trying to limit the commercial freedom of ISPs to offer a  range
>> of products based around different sized networks?
> 
> Well, I think it is inevitabale to revisit that issue and to reopen that
> case. For 2 reasons:
> 
> - address space was never to be "sold" to end users by "volume", it was
>   always to be provided on an as needed basis. Address space is not an
>   ISPs "property" to be resold for profit. There are many other (better)
>   ways to implement commercial freedom and product differentiation.

Totally agree, see my previous email.

> 
>   In the IPv4 world, the (marketing departments of) ISPs got away with
>   (mis)using the scarcity argument for wiring the size of address blocks
>   into the packages they are offering.
> 
>   My personal view on that: the users got used to it and the community,
>   including the RIRs were/are tolerating this approach.

And if we keep doing so, sooner or later, regulators may realize the need to
take care of this and I don't think is good they come into our process. Our
process work, we can always improve it, and this is one of the issues that
should immediately been considered. Otherwise, we are just offering the
control to the regulators/governments, sooner or later. Please, let's be
smart and avoid it !

We can have much better business not based on "address selling" marketing
actions and everyone will be much more happy.

> 
> - for IPv6, one of the explicit goals (architectural assumptions) was that
>   the community should do away with the bickering, the mechanisms that
>   support or allow IPv4-like ISP lock-in mechanisms, by *assigning* equally
>   sized blocks (/48) to end sites because IPv6 addresses are plenty.
>   Other than trying to limit the attractiveness of "selling" addresses, there
>   are more reasons why a homogenous address distribution seems favourable:
> 
>   When moving site networks around (ISP a -> ISP b) the site would not have
>   to re-design the subnet layout, just the LHS bits in the addresses would
>   have to be changed.
>   (Anyone still remembering A6 RRs to make that easy? ;-) )
>   Now if/when we encourage the situation that different ISPs offer different
>   "packages",  it is easy to end up in a situation where a site would be
> holding
>   a say /48, but another ISP would (by default) only assign /56. Then, either
> the
>   site would have to re-structure its subnet landscape or *and that's the
> point
>   here* should have the right to request *and* to receive an equally sized and
>   *contiguous* assignment from ISP b, up to the originally proposed /48.

Agree !

> 
>   Anythig else is (again, and through the same backdoor of "conservation")
>   just a motivation again to "sell" address space again. And to promote
>   address translation mechanisms and products...

I agree with conservation, but definitively not with ultra-conservation, and
this seems to me what we are trying to do. Not sure if is also a way to have
a backdoor for selling addresses, but may be you're right !

> 
>> I remember  this
>> issue being discussed in the context of IPv4 when ripe-152, the
>> 'Charging by Local Internet Registries' document was reviewed a  couple
>> of years ago. I seem to remember several strong statements  against RIR
>> policy regulating business models during that discussion.  Is this a
>> discussion you want to re-visit?
> 
> In the context of this proposal, I think we need to do that, otherwise we
> are pulling the carpet away from underneath the original architectural
> assumptions and recommendations for IPv6.
> 
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r47-minutes.html (Section F)
>> 
>> Regards,
> 
> The problem(?) that I'm seeing here is that the RIPE community is made up
> of more ISPs than end-users and customers. So there may well be a bias to
> preserve the IPv4 business models for the IPv6 world.

How we could involve users in the process ? This will be a good point. But
may be is not needed if the actual participants in the process see the point
and realize that there are other business possibilities, much better than
based on address selling as said before. Are we smart enough to see that and
at the same time avoid intervention of regulators/governments ?

> 
> So, when you are asking "Are you trying to limit the commercial freedom of
> ISPs", from a communities point of view and my personal one: yes, *in this
> particular respect* because there are plenty of other and more appropriate
> mechanisms to use for product differentiation.

Yes !

> 
> Wilfried
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.