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

Hi Gert,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>> 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...

I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It
doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes
the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User.
(Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR")

This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they
neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.

The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot
higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their
end users. 

The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I
think that particular boat sailed a long time ago...

rgds,
Sascha Luck

>
>(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