[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting

> What I see coming is that ULA + NAT will be vast IPv6 reality. Thanks
> that the IPv6 end-to-end promise is killed off again via restrictive
> policies made by ISPs for ISPs.

I'm sorry, but this working group is not restricted to ISPs. It's open for *everyone*.

>> - They already provide access services with IPv4 PI space
>> According to the current policy they should become an LIR and get PA space.
> 
> So just "make them pay a penalty". They are not aggregating customers,
> so no good reason for PA other than artificial hurdle.

??? This situation is _all_ about aggregating customers...

>> If we (=working group) decide that there should be IPv6 PI for these or
>> other purposes, let's discuss that. This is a working group.
> 
> A working group with almost zero lobby for non-LIRs. Don't start fights
> you cannot win.

The is no lobby. There is no such thing here as 'a fight you cannot win'. The only reason that a proposal doesn't reach consensus is when not enough people care, or if there are good arguments against the proposal. Please get non-LIRs to participate here to form a workable solution. You seem to propose PI space as a solution, someone suggested LISP as a solution, let's see what is a workable solution for everybody involved. (Yes: everybody, both ISPs and Enterprises)

>> If you want to see something changed: write a proposal and it will be
>> discussed!
> 
> Yes, between folks who have zero business interest for such a proposal
> to pass. See above - a fight you cannot win.
> 
> Non-LIRs aren't organized enough to have any effective influence on RIR
> policy development process.

Nobody here is 'organized'. Everybody speaks for him/herself here. This working group consists of people, not organizations...
Sander