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

Hi Nick, 

> I don't support this policy as it stands, because it makes it too easy
> to
> get PI space instead of PA space.  This will cause deaggregation in the
> ipv6 DFZ.

I don't think it would cause de-aggregation (for definition how I see it,
announcing a single allocation into smaller subnets), but it might bring
more prefixes in the DFZ. However a PI IPv6 subnet or a PA IPv6 subnet for a
new LIR that isn't multi-homed could be seen as equal. 
So from that perspective, this policy proposal doesn't change anything. 

What I did already see is v6 PA space being handed out to customers and
being announced in smaller prefixes under another AS than the /32 PA that it
came from. 

 > If the policy were changed to add in a clause that the end-user was
> explicitly required to provide evidence that they needed PI space
> instead
> of PA, then I would support it.  This change would raise the bar
> slightly
> but significantly, and would also align the proposed IPv4 PI policy
> (2006-05) with the proposed IPv6 PI policy (2011-02) in this particular
> respect.  I believe that there is merit in both of these things.

Personally I think that providing evidence is open for motivational
discussions.
If one can motivate why he/she requires PI, they should get it. I rather
don't see such a arguable line taken up in the policy, but much rather see
an increase in the (financial) cost for becoming a LIR AND specifically the
cost for PI. 

Along the same line as 2006-05 is, stop BS'ing to the IPRA's, tell them what
you / your customer require, without inflating the story.

What is the ONLY reason why an end-customer would return their IP addresses
? A financial reason. 
I dare to say that a lot of space is not returned, because the end-customer
or the LIR doesn't feel the pain (the upkeep cost) for it. 

Increasing the cost for PI will be the way to make sure that end-customers
are going to think twice. Do I really need this, or is it just cool to have.

However, the RIPE community can't dictate the cost for PI, as that is to be
decided in the AGM meeting by the member votes.  
The initial draft (before publishing) had in fact an increase in the cost
for PI, however as these are 2 separate paths to be taken, it was decided
not included it in 2011-02. 

Regards,
Erik Bais