[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)

Erik Bais wrote:

> Hi Michael, 
> 
> 
>>Nonetheless, the important factor for me is: Will it cost the same amount
>>of money per year? This is "tragedy of the commons" problem, so as long as
>>the cost for holding the PI resource is the same before and after this
>>proposal, I don't have any problems with it.
> 
> 
>>If it's all of a sudden a lot cheaper, I oppose the change.
> 
> 
> Initially the proposal did include a change in the cost for PI IPv6, however
> it was decided to not include that into this discussion as cost for PI isn't
> decided within the community but in the AGM meeting. 
> 
> Having said this, there will be a public discussion behind this to get input
> from the community to review the cost of specifically PI IPv6 as input for
> the chairs to take into the AGM meeting. 
> 
> It wasn't my intention to ask for cheaper PI IPv6, the opposite in fact, I
> personally think that PI IPv6 should be more expensive than currently
> especially when the multihoming requirement would be dropped. 

We should keep in mind that the RIPE NCC, working (+ charging for its services)
according to the policies as agreed by the Community is NOT an internet tax and
fund-redistribution entity!

Usually, the cost for a particular service is set to reflect the effort in
the NCC to provide the registration (and associated) services.

There is no way to redistribute a "FIB-entry-surcharge" to whatever or whoever
believes to "suffer" from this proposed change in policy.

> The proposal as it is, is to have the same requirements for PI IPv6 as one
> would face if they would signup to become a LIR.  

Not really. It would only remove special (and imho artificial to begin with)
*operational* requirments (i.e. multi-homing, ASing) from the access to the
resource.

Registering a prefix in the Resource Registry by the RIPE NCC should require
the same effort as IPv4 PI and the current IPv6 PI.

Actually - it should become cheaper - effortwise - because the NCC can drop
the superficial and ineffective "checks" made after assignment, to assess if
the MH requirements were or still are met.

> Kind regards,
> Erik Bais 

Wilfried.