[address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Hi,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:29:32PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> rather than making policy successively more dense, technically
> prescriptive and complicated, is it not way past time to abolish
> the PA/PI distinction altogether? 
> In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP"
> function.

Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it
is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there.  We've tried
a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights"
and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated...

(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI
label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block 
for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180516/25aa81c2/attachment.sig>