[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

Hi Nick,

On 27/07/2009 9:38, "Nick Hilliard" <nick at inex.ie> wrote:

> On 27/07/2009 17:07, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> Right now, the policies for PA and PI are the same: if you qualify for a /28
>> of PA then you qualify for a /28 of PI. But if you change the policy so that
>> when you qualify for a /28 of PA then you qualify for a /24 of PI then PI
>> space becomes much more attractive because you get more space and it is
>> independent of your ISP.
> 
> I deliberately left this out of the calculation, and perhaps phrased things
> slightly sloppily.  It's a know unknown, or perhaps an unknown unknown, to
> borrow a cliche.
> 
> Besides the two issues are still separate.  Qualifying for /28 PA is a
> matter of just having 8 internet-connected machines within 1 year and the
> ability to configure a default route on each machine.  Qualifying for /24
> PI would be a matter of having 8 internet connected machines, a router, an
> ASN, more than one upstream transit partner or a bunch of peering partners
> and enough in-house or consultancy clue to make this all work.

Ah... That was the other piece of vague language. The proposed text says
"demonstrate a plan to multihome". The word "plan" has been interpreted as a
*very* low bar in the IPv6 policy and I suspect that it would be
unreasonable to have the word interpreted very differently in this policy.

So, my interpretation of the requirement as written in the proposal is that
it requires "a plan". Not a set of contracts. Not proof that there is
equipment. Not proof that there are people with the required skills.

The way I read the text, a requester would need a network design and maybe a
generic "fill in the blanks" implementation plan. That is all.

So, while I can see that there is an unmet need, I also think that the text
in this current proposal is sufficiently loose to allow the creation of a
"pay for PI" industry. I make no comment on whether that is a desirable
outcome.

[...]

> On a side note, I wonder whether the lower number of requests for the year
> until may was due to the new contractual requirements.

An excellent question. I would also like to know this.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda