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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sascha Luck
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:31 PM
> To: Sander Steffann
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [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.

I couldn't think for better words, I totally agree with points 1 to 4!

Regards, Mark
> 
> 
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sander
> >