[address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space

Hi Sander, all,

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:29:50PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
> What would then be the difference between PI and PA addresses? Do you 
> think we should get rid of that distinction completely, or is this not 
> what you mean? I heard people talk about the distinction here at the 
> RIPE meeting in Prague, so it seems to be a topic of discussion.

I would be in favour of abandoning the distinction altogether for ipv6.

1) In ipv4, even now, many "LIRs" use PA space as "PI space", simply
because it was deemed easier to just become a LIR than go through 
the PI "mill". Conversely, as mentioned, a lot of PI space is used as 
"PA lite", this usually because it is cheaper and:

2) Many orgs have no staff trained in LIR procedures (and no time/money 
to change that) and would gladly hand the bureaucracy off to their 
friendly local LIR. 

3) If address space were, simply, that, LIR functions could be handled 
by "qualified" orgs and their customers (be they end-users or SPs) can
get routable and assignable address space; everyone wins.

4) Conceivably, if every "assignee" would have to become a member, 
membership fees for everyone should fall significantly; again everyone
wins. It would also fulfil the requirements of 2007-01. Most small
SPs and end-users wouldn't mind becoming members if cost-effective.
What they don't want is the hassle of learning LIR procedures.

 
rgds,
Sascha Luck


> 
> Thanks,
> Sander
>