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

As one of the authors of this proposal, maybe I should just shut up now, 
but I would just like to say that the current version of the proposal is 
a first attempt trying to solve an identified problem. Apparently it 
became a bit too complex.

Another comment below.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>       Dear Address Policy WG,
>
>       On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:36:24PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> > A proposed change to RIPE Documents ripe-589, "IPv6 Address
> > Allocation and Assignment Policy", ripe-451, "IPv6 Address
> > Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points" and ripe-233,
> > "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region"
> > is now available for discussion.
> [..]
> > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 25 October 2013.
> 
> The discussion phase for this proposal is now over, but after the
> feedback received at the RIPE meeting in Athens (and here on the list,
> even if in the wrong thread :) ) the chairs have deviced to take a step
> back, and re-state the fundamental "do we want to go there?" question
> (and extend the discussion phase by +4 weeks).
> 
> The proposal aims to unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI space into one kind of
> address space, "IPv6 addresses".  This is the goal.
> 
> The idea to go there came from various people in the community, mostly
> for one reason - having two differently "coloured" addresses that do
> the same thing, routingwise, but follow different policies and have
> different strings attached, creates quite some confusion for the folks
> out there that can no longer be nicely separated into "ISPs" (->become
> RIPE members, use PA) and "end-users" (->use PI, if BGP-based multihoming
> and/or upstream independence is required).
> 
> 
> In my opinion, this distinction is not particularly useful in itself, 
> and could very well be a floating definition.
> 
> Coming from the DNS registrar side, I cannot help thinking that looking 
> at the registry/registrar model might be beneficial for making things 
> clearer for people out there.
> 
> One way of seeing this, is that the LIRs are "registrars" for IP address 
> space, and that their role could simply be about registering and 
> brokering assignments and allocations for the RIR.
> 
> An ISP or an "end user" then becomes an unnecessary distinction, as they 
> would both have to go to a LIR to get their address space, and it's just 
> a matter of placing a request for the correct size, at the discretion of 
> the applicant and the LIR.
> 
> Mind you, I think this is mostly about perspective, but if we could use 
> the similarities with DNS registrations, then end customers (ISPs or 
> whatever) might have less confusion.
> 
> I could very well be wrong.

I (personally) think you are right. You don't have so set up a 
domain name registrar if you just want to use a couple of domain names. We 
regularly see entities out there who just want some address space. 
Sometimes just a small space and sometimes a very space. I think if would 
be beneficial if they had an option to ask a registrar (LIR) to do the 
book keeping for them.

Best Regards,

Daniel Stolpe

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm