[address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?

| This is an argument what many people might support -- even me ;-) , --- but I would also add some
| review period to all PI allocations. Like this:
|
| The policy allowing Provider Independent allocation might be revoked later on and if it is revoked
| then ALL PI holder not fullfilling the new policy will be requested to return their PI address space
| and renumber to PA address space within 2 years.

I understand where you are coming from - since this will over time bring PI assignments more and more
in line with the new policy. I have two issues with this - up until this day the RIPE has always functioned
on a basis of proof the requirement and get the allocation basis where once it was handed out it stayed
this way. Putting in a review over X amount of time will change the way the RIPE operates in this respect.
It also feels a bit like you can have it now - but only if you agree to dual home/get as/become lir within
now and X amount of time - so in respect not changing the policy just giving people a grace period.
The other issue is - how is the RIPE going to validate - both from a technical perspective as well as
from an organisational perspective. This will take resources, costs money, etc. And on what grounds does
the RIPE concluded you are still allowed to keep the PI space? You also get into the muddy waters here
of having to retrieve an allocation - how is the RIPE going to enforce this?

The way I see it we can do one of three things, not change the policy, change the policy to remove the
dual homing requirement, or change the policy in such a way that we keep the dual homing but allow for
alignment with the IPv4 policy of you already have an allocation.

Jasper

Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer