This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Sep 30 22:12:46 CEST 2013
Hi, without actually wanting to drive the direction anywhere, just adding something that you might have missed :-) On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:02:21PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > PI holders currently cannot assign address space to their customers, and > that's what I understand this proposal to be all about changing, but it > does it in a way that defines a new "breed" of End User who a) does not > at all fit the original definition of an End User, while b) does > completely fit the definition of an Internet Registry. Put it another > way, the new (1st level) type of End User created by the proposal > appears to me to be an LIR in all but name. Well, there are still "just plain" end users of "PI space" out there, that do not do "LIR things", but just run a (multihomed) network - we have a couple of these under our sponsoring LIR, and they are quite happy not having to deal with the RIPE NCC (because they are smaller german enterprises, not willing to deal with international contracts, etc.). The whole thing that started this PA/PI unification project is that the distinction between "ISP" (=LIR, PA) and "end user" (=not LIR, PI) has become less and less clear over time, and as such, it became mostly confusing to "people out there" not regularily dealing in RIPE policy. So - based on "some people will want to operate more like an ISP" and "other people will be happy to number primarily their own network, and maybe a server of their neighbour next door", it seemed to make sense to keep the distinction of "full LIR" and "address space flowing via a sponsoring LIR to folks not really doing LIR things" - and those might not be interested at all in having to deal more with the RIPE NCC. OTOH, I really should stay out of this discussion now, as it's not my role to push this any specific way - while I *did* get this started, now Elvis is the one driving it, and the community has to decide what they (you!) want, while I focus on the chairing thing - guiding the discussion and such. Gert Doering -- some hats -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130930/005dff96/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]