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

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Roger Jørgensen wrote:

> Erik Bais's mail touch what is probably the only real difference
> between PI and PA, and our core problem:
>
>> From Erik Bais's post on this thread:
> "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."
>
>
> Isn't this really about what is the difference between being a member and not?
> It would be nice to get ride of the PI and PA, and at the same time
> keeping the difference between member (LIR) and none member (no-LIR).

Well, there has to be some benefits for the members, hasn't it? At the 
same time, what says RIPE has to have 10.000 members? Or 130 employees? 
And the current policy looks very much like a membership boosting 
construction: just sign up, pay the bill and get a /29 (compaired to ask a 
member to apply for a /48 with very restricted use and make life really 
hard if you ever want anything more).

What makes us think that PA holders/members are always responsible while 
PI holders/non-members are completely not trustworthy?

I would prefer policies to apply for addresses (let's say, thou shalt not 
assign less than a /xx to an yy) rather than the role play of today.

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