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

Hi Tore,

On 10/1/13 9:08 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Elvis Velea
>
>> No, I do not agree to call them LIR, the LIR is well defined. You are
>> right, we maybe should not call them End Users either, let's work on
>> redefining the End User to something else.
>
> The terms LIR (and IR) is indeed well defined, and that's indeed my
> point - these new "super End Users" actually fit that definition. :-)

Okay, got the point and somehow agree with it.

>
> (I'm only talking about the role of the LIR in the Internet Registry
> System here, so to be clear I'm *not* equating "LIR" to "direct member
> of the RIPE NCC who pays the full membership fee and has voting rights
> at the AGM", nor am I saying that everyone who holds PI space should be
> forced become such direct members of the RIPE NCC.)
>

Well, since the assignments will be removed, anyone receiving a 
sub-allocation from the friendly provider can further sub-allocate (as 
long as they receive more than a /64) and become some sort of IR. But, 
would you consider yourself an IR if you receive a sub-allocation from 
your ISP and sub-allocate a /64 to your brother for his web server?

> Anyway, I think I've made my point, so I'll leave it at that and let
> this be my last message on the subject. Like I've said before, this is
> not intended to be a "my way or the highway" statement of opposition,
> just a (hopefully) constructive piece of feedback you and your
> co-authors may do with as you wish.

One of the slides at the RIPE Meeting (and I hope you will be in Athens) 
will be related to this subject and I hope we can have a constructive 
discussion and reach a good decision.

thanks for all the feedback, please continue to bring it on ;)

cheers,
elvis