[address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

> I think it's a mistake to say that an organisation can not 
> have v6 PI, simply because they are an LIR.  Their 
> relationship with RIPE does not alter the technical 
> correctness (or otherwise) of their request for address resources.

I personally agree with this. However we as an organization 
would not support delaying this policy any longer. By accepting
this policy we fix a major gap in parity with the IPv4 policy,
and any fixes can be done later.

Even the smallest ISP is not a RIPE LIR, they are an ISP
which has a RIPE LIR relationship. So the LIR clause is
not only an inappropriate non-technical criteria, it is
actually non-functional as well.

I would like to see 2006-01 accepted as soon as possible, and
a new proposal made to get rid of the LIR clause, and perhaps
also address underlying technical issues. For instance, should
the clause be changed to say that PI blocks should not be 
given to networks which have PA blocks announced by the 
same AS number? In other words, is there an underlying technical
criteria related to reducing the number of IPv6 announcements
from a single network?

--Michael Dillon