[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Erik Bais wrote:
> I don’t think that the fear from past times is something that we
> should keep in this discussion these days..

the issue isn't fear from past times: it's that PI & PA are ingrained
pretty deeply in the RIPE NCC billing model and service expectation
model, and some way would need to be found to square a number of circles
in order to integrate the two flavours of integers.  I'm not objecting
to trying to get this done, btw, just saying that if we're going to do
it, let's do it properly.

Regarding 2016-04, it's clear that the current rules / rule
interpretations are too limited and are causing problems in the real
world, so the sensible thing to do would be to open up the usage terms
so that third parties can use PI assignments, even if the addresses are
not subassigned.  This doesn't go as far as what Jordi is talking about
and looks like a practicable middle ground to aim for.

Nick