This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Tue Oct 1 00:13:05 CEST 2013
Hi Sacha, On 9/30/13 9:27 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:22:52PM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote: >> There are only two paths, from the RIPE NCC to LIR and from the RIPE >> NCC to End user (we may decide to change the name) via the Sponsoring >> LIR. > > I would be in favour of converting all resources into "independent > resources" and the path going, in all cases: hum, that will open a lot of can of worms, what do we do if every current LIR decides to become a customer of a Sponsoring LIR? > > RIR -> Sponsoring LIR -> End User. > Advantages: > - End Users can transfer "their" resources to a different Sponsoring LIR ok... > > - Specialist LIRs can be established that have the necessary skills to > manage resources properly, End Users wouldn't have to worry about > resource management and it may result in reducing the work-load on the > RIR.. we already have those entities in a few countries. I know at least of a few entities that mostly do IR management in various countries in the region.. Nobody is stopping the Specialists to just open a registry and start offering services. We are already doing that and we have just registered a few weeks ago :-) > > Disadvantages: > > - This opens the door to the establishment of "N(ational)IRs", something > which some states have expressed an interest in. I would not see this a disadvantage. > > - There is a probability of de-aggregation of resources as they move > between Sponsoring LIRs - could possibly be mitigated by making the > minimum assignments big enough. this would probably be a big disadvantage. > > - RIR membership will likely decline - this could also be an advantage. > Not really, we will have less LIRs paying a lot more. > rgds, > Sascha Luck cheers, elvis > > PS: in such a scenario I would even consider supporting 2012-08 ;) PS: me too :-) but this scenario is out of scope of this policy proposal as the policy proposal does not cover IPv4 :-)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]