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

I fully agree with Erik, please do not continue with 2013-06. 

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais
Sent: 26. lokakuuta 2013 19:34
To: 'Gert Doering'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi Gert, 

Thanks for the email and the discussion in Athens and let me start by saying
thanks to the authors of the amount of effort and work they have put into
this. 

> Anyway.  I think what we need to hear now from the community (*you*) is
> where we want to go:

Having heard the discussion in Athens and seen the presentation, I
personally think that we should abandon 2013-06. 
Having garage-style 'hosters' do assignments, just because they can while
using PI IPv6 space, is against the policy, however removing that
distinction between PI and PA for v6 and allowing sub-assignments from PI
space will basically open the door in the near future for cheap resources,
without being an LIR. That will have an impact on the number of members the
NCC will have once we are beyond the v4 era ... And less members will result
in a high fee per member.  

>  - do nothing, our policy for IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI "as of today" is fine

Having said that, maybe the currently policy isn't perfect, but it is better
than the alternative imho. 
Not every End-User can legally become an LIR and they would still require
the ability to be independent from their upstream provider. 

>  - keep the distinction, work on the IPv6 PI policy (if the pain is 
>    large enough that someone actually volunteers to come with a proposal)

Been there, done that... Let's implement v6 first. The current policy
provides options for people on what to do and how to get what you require.  
If the policy is limiting v6 deployments, we can always revisit a specific
option again imho.  

The current policy allows a End-User to receive their own /48 (minimal
assignment) or larger with demonstrated documentation and need. 
The limitation is that they are not allowed to sub-assign to other
organizations.  

>  - go the big step, unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI, and solve all the detail
problems that need to be addressed if we go there.

I would strongly not go there to remove the PI limitation of sub-assignments
to others and increasing the assigned (or newly proposed allocate) size to a
/32 or /29 similar as one would get by signing up for a LIR membership.  

Regards,
Erik Bais