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

* Gert Doering

> 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.).

I didn't miss these, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. Perhaps I should
have called them "non-member LIRs" rather than "associate members". So
the process would be that your LIR (which is a member of the RIPE NCC)
would sponsor your customers to also become LIRs. Contracts are between
you and them, no direct RIPE NCC dealings there, while the NCC charges
you a fee for each LIR you sponsor in such a way. Just like with PI
today. Address blocks would be delegated straight from the RIPE NCC to
your customers, also just like with PI today.

Assuming these customers of yours only wants to run a multihomed
network, they'd just make an assignment to themselves (or you'd help
them with that, or the NCC could do it based on their request forms when
registering the delegation), and that's that.

> 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.

But...the address space isn't flowing via a sponsoring LIR with PI. The
role of the sponsoring LIR is merely a contractual one. AIUI, PI is
direct assignments from the RIPE NCC to the End Users, just like PA is
direct allocations from the RIPE NCC to the LIRs.

Tore