[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi Gert,

do not leave all this discussion on my shoulders. I appreciate your 
steering.

On 9/30/13 10:12 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> without actually wanting to drive the direction anywhere, just adding
> something that you might have missed :-)
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:02:21PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> PI holders currently cannot assign address space to their customers, and
>> that's what I understand this proposal to be all about changing, but it
>> does it in a way that defines a new "breed" of End User who a) does not
>> at all fit the original definition of an End User, while b) does
>> completely fit the definition of an Internet Registry. Put it another
>> way, the new (1st level) type of End User created by the proposal
>> appears to me to be an LIR in all but name.
>
> Well, there are still "just plain" end users of "PI space" out there,
> that do not do "LIR things", but just run a (multihomed) network - we
> have a couple of these under our sponsoring LIR, and they are quite
> happy not having to deal with the RIPE NCC (because they are smaller
> german enterprises, not willing to deal with international contracts,
> etc.).
>
> The whole thing that started this PA/PI unification project is that the
> distinction between "ISP" (=LIR, PA) and "end user" (=not LIR, PI) has
> become less and less clear over time, and as such, it became mostly
> confusing to "people out there" not regularily dealing in RIPE policy.

right.

>
>
> So - based on "some people will want to operate more like an ISP" and
> "other people will be happy to number primarily their own network, and
> maybe a server of their neighbour next door", it seemed to make sense
> to keep the distinction of "full LIR" and "address space flowing via a
> sponsoring LIR to folks not really doing LIR things" - and those might
> not be interested at all in having to deal more with the RIPE NCC.

Correct, and that is why we (the proposers) came up with the definition 
of End User in the current proposal.

After seeing the page [1] on the RIPE website and the suggestions in the 
past few days I realise that we may need to define a new entity that is 
not an LIR but does sub-allocate address space to a customer. An entity 
that receives an allocation from the RIPE NCC.

>
>
> OTOH, I really should stay out of this discussion now, as it's not my
> role to push this any specific way - while I *did* get this started,
> now Elvis is the one driving it, and the community has to decide what
> they (you!) want, while I focus on the chairing thing - guiding the
> discussion and such.

Please do help with the steering, I will keep responding to the 
questions/comments/suggestions but I welcome your steering capabilities :-)

>
> Gert Doering
> 	-- some hats
>

elvis
   ~1 AM and I still need to respond to 3 e-mails

PS: Daniel, Olaf.. help! :-)

[1] 
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/internet-coordination/internet-governance/internet-technical-community/the-rir-system