[address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR

> That's the main reason I don't want to see IPv6 PI proliferation, we're 
> trying hard to keep down the number of IPv6 DFZ routes, let's not 
> explode it by allowing easy PI. Let's keep the pressure up on other ways 
> to multihome instead.

ok, look @ this scenario:


1. I'am a SponsorLIR
2. I open second LIR to get next /32, and I merge it immediatelly with 
my LIR - so I will have x2 /32
3. first of my /32 is used under my main AS only
4. second of my /32 is segmented into /48. Every /48 is advertised under 
different AS number, of a different little ISP who receives these /48 
from me.


So - this little (and expansive in first moment) trick also causes that 
routing table grows up.

Now - the money. I'll charge for each /48 50 euro yearly. If /48 would 
be PI, then RIPE would charge me 50 euro, and I would recharge 50 euro + 
something.
- first case - I earn a lot of money, RIPE - no extra money (except 
opening a new LIR, just once)
- second case - we share ;)


I can provide /48 for every operator in PL, exaclty the same way as I do 
it today with SponsorLIR and IPv4 PI. They don't have to be my downstreams.


And you know what, I suppose that this already happens and RIPE can't 
stop it. If new policy will try to block it, people will find our legal 
workaround. People are smarter than any institution.


Regards,
Marcin