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

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> 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:
>
> RIR -> Sponsoring LIR -> End User.
> Advantages:
> - End Users can transfer "their" resources to a different Sponsoring LIR
>
> - 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..
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> - This opens the door to the establishment of "N(ational)IRs", something
> which some states have expressed an interest in.
>
> - 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.
>
> - RIR membership will likely decline - this could also be an advantage.

You're talking about a quite radical changes to how we think of IP space.
What you're hinting at are not that difficult from something we're discussing
on IETF level, and in the concept of LISP. Get a new block of address space
that will be distributed directly to end-users. It's just IP space.

It do include a tons of pitfalls and difficult consideration, alot.


On the other hand, what is the real difference from what you're suggestion
and what current reality are? The LIR "concept"?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no