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

Hi Roger,

On 10/1/13 9:43 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> You're talking about a quite radical changes to how we think of IP space.

Correct, current proposal is quite a radical change. However, it does 
not change much the reality today.

Companies do request /48 PI assignments saying that they will use it 
only for their infrastructure and then start giving bits of it to 
customers without actually registering the assignment/sub-allocation and 
basically violating the policy.

> 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.
>

LISP is a totally different story. Let's not mix them up, please :-)

> 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"?

The LIR concept is a well defined concept. Based on the discussions on 
this list in the past few days I do realise that we need to define the 
previously known PI user and I see that the term 'End User' does not 
match with the role.

cheers,
elvis