[address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:05:50PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
>      1. The current system is, quite frankly, shit. It is embarrassing
>         that the RIPE region has continued to put up with such a poorly
>         managed way to track number resources. Any mechanism to track
>         these resources is better than what we have now (which is
>         NOTHING).

Oh, I agree absolutely. Not only is it a good idea to know where the space 
is, it is also a good idea to bring these end-users into the community in
some way or the other. This is after all what the founders of the Internet
intended :)

>      2. No policy is going to make everyone happy. We have worked at
>         this for many months now (the proposal is 2007-01, not 2008-01).
>         At some point we have to recognize that what we have is not
>         perfect, but will ever be perfect, so we should adopt it anyway.
>         To quote Voltaire: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (the perfect is
>         the enemy of the good).

Sure, but it is like with laws, if you get it wrong, it's next to impossible
to right it after the fact.

> If the "barrier" you want to remove for IPv6 is knowing who is actually
> using the address space, I think that you are misguided. That "barrier"
> needs to be firmly in place, before we end up with the same mess in IPv6
> as we have in IPv4.

That's not my intention at all, see above.

> > I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea
> > needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. 
> 
> Since this is not a part of the proposal justification or details (I
> think), we should not have to worry about it.
> 
> I agree it sounds quite awful though. :)

It's not part of the proposal but some have suggested setting a high financial 
barrier to discourage use of PI(v6) in order to avoid "pollution" of the 
routing table. I would not like to see this essentially useful proposal hi-
jacked for that agenda.   
> 
> Does this policy mention changing justification at all? I don't think it
> does, but I might have missed it.

It doesn't, there isn't any policy for PIv6 yet, I guess this would have to 
be discussed in the context of this (new) policy.

cheers,
Sascha