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

* Nick Hilliard

> a cursory look over the changes is giving me a warm fuzzy feeling.  I need
> more time to look over it, but right now there's nothing I can see which
> stands out as obviously harmful.

+1

Some comments from the top of my head (probably not exhaustive since I
need some more time to digest the totality of the proposal):

- I find the new graphics slightly confusing. There is drawn a link
between the Sponsoring LIR to between the RIPE NCC and the End User, as
expected, but also between the Sponsoring LIR and the 1st and 2nd level
End Users (i.e. between the End User holding the allocation and its
downstream End Users). Why is that? I don't see that the Sponsoring LIR
has any responsibilities on this level? Also, is there some significance
to be read into the fact that the line between the 2nd level End User
and its End Site is dotted, while between the 1st level End User and its
End Site it is solid?

- The proposal should update ripe-592 section 5.6.2, bullet 2. This
makes a reference to the IPv6 IXP document which this proposal retires,
as I understand it. So in order to avoid this reference not pointing
anywhere useful, the the original definition into ripe-592 (I believe
this would be the PDO's preference), or to update the reference to point
to the proposed unified IPv6 document.

- I find the precise definition of the term "End User" to be hollowed
out to some extent. In the proposed model, the 1st level End User is for
all practical purposes operating as an LIR - the only significant
difference seems to be related to which organisation it needs to pay for
the privilege (i.e. the RIPE NCC or the Sponsoring LIR). To me the
implied meaning of "End User" is the "final" recipient, i.e., someone
who is actually *using* the addresses, while a 1st level End User
certainly meets the definition of IR in section 2.1. I would therefore
consider instead calling this role a "Sponsored LIR" or something along
those lines.

- In a similar vein, the LIRs have some NCC-provided tools at their
disposal, such as for example the LIR Portal, which is the only place
where at least some information can be updated. RPKI is another. Has it
been thought whether the "Sponsored LIRs" will be given direct access to
these tools, or if their resources will appear in the interface of the
Sponsoring LIR, who will have the responsibility to maintain this
information on their behalf (which would be an increased responsibility
compared to sponsored PI), or something else such as LIR Portal access
being one of the incentives for becoming a "proper" LIR?

- When it comes to the counterpoint regarding taking away the incentive
to become "proper" LIRs. Well - it's been possible to run consumer-based
ISPs on IPv4 PI for quite a while, yet the NCC is failing to turn a
deficit even though it allegedly is trying, so I'm not terribly
concerned. :-) More seriously though, I don't think this is likely to be
much of a problem before the same "Sponsored LIR" concept is backported
to IPv4, and not necessarily then either.

Tore