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

Hi Tore,

I'll respond below to all the suggestions.

On 9/30/13 6:41 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Elvis Velea
>
>> There are only two paths, from the RIPE NCC to LIR and from the RIPE NCC
>> to End user (we may decide to change the name) via the Sponsoring LIR.
>
> Hi Elvis,
>
> Just thinking out loud here, so don't mistake this for opposition to the
> current proposal, it's not, but we are in the bikeshe^Wdiscussion phase
> after all...

right :)

>
> I'm thinking that the "Sponsoring LIR" concept is an NCC operational
> issue that perhaps doesn't really belong in address policy to begin
> with. Perhaps it would result in a more concise and elegant policy if
> instead of "unifying" PA with PI, this proposal simply just removed the
> PI concept altogether? Simply just delete section 7 of the policy
> document and leave it at that - as far as the policy document goes anyway.
>
> Then you would have only one path and no confusion:
>
> RIR[RIPE NCC] -> LIR -> End User

Nick already responded to this, and actually, my personal belief is that 
we should aim to have everyone pay the same fee but not force everyone 
to become an LIR. Some companies will/can not be members of other 
organisations (RIPE NCC).

The scheme we have right now works fine:

RIPE NCC -> LIR -> End User ->[...] -> End Site

(this is already possible with the LIR sub-allocating to the end user 
even with the current policy)

RIPE NCC -> End User ->[...] -> End Site

this is basically the big thing introduced by this policy proposal, 
allowing the non-LIRs to offer services over IPv6 to any kind of 
customers they may have.

>
> Everything that follows below could be considered operational issues
> that's for the NCC/AGM/Board to decide on...but just to elaborate a bit
> more on where I'm thinking something like this could lead to:
>
> Q: But what about existing PI holders and their blocks?
> A: Just start considering them to be LIRs. Upon implementation of the
> new policy, the NCC could automatically convert all existing inet6num in
> the database with status ASSIGNED PI to ones with status "ASSIGNED"
> (PA), and add a congruent object with status ALLOCATED-BY-RIR.

This will happen anyway, all the ASSIGNED PI will become ALLOCATED.

>
> Q: They wouldn't want to pay the full membership price for being LIRs!
> A: We don't have to make them. It could be possible to be a RIPE region
> LIR even though you're not a direct/full member of the RIPE NCC. RIPE
> NCC members could be seen as "sponsors of LIR status" instead of
> "sponsors for PI blocks". It could even cost the same €50 as before.
>

This is what will happen with this current proposal. However, the RIPE 
NCC will make the allocation to the End User and not to the LIR.


> Q: How would that work?
> A: We could end up with two levels of RIPE NCC membership, e.g. "full"
> like we have today, and "associate". Both would be fully-blown LIRs, but
> to keep the operational overhead in NCC billing/finance low, the
> membership fee for these "associate" members would be charged by the NCC
> to the full members who are sponsoring them (just like with PI).

We will have two levels, just not two levels of membership. We will have 
members and non-members. The non-members will have to pay the invoice 
for maintenance of these resources to their Sponsoring LIR.

>
> Q: Why would anyone want to be a full member then?
> A: Access to certain NCC services such as the LIR Portal, Atlas credit
> boost, etc. could be limited to full members only.
>
> In any case - those would be operational and mercantile issues we could
> leave out of the policy (but perhaps provide suggestions/guidance on in
> the supporting notes). Maybe I'm off my rocker, but this is what was
> going through my head on the bus back home today... :-)
>

Correct, if someone wants to become a member they can benefit from all 
the services the RIPE NCC can offer. Otherwise, they can just request an 
allocation via the Sponsoring LIR and (maybe) pay (a bit) less.

cheers,
elvis