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

Hi,

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single*
> category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing
> size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an artificial
> name.

Speaking for my PI-holding (IPv4 and IPv6) customers, most of them do
not *want* to be a LIR.  They have a nice contract with a local company
(us) that does all the paperwork for them, speaks their local language,
they can visit our office if needed, we handle the international money
transfer bit, etc.

Some *cannot* become a LIR due to governing laws that disallow them 
to join any sort of association.

So "doing away with end-users that have their own space and are not 
a RIPE member" is not going to fly.

Gert Doering
        -- speaking as sponsoring LIR admin
-- 
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/20180519/b4bcc603/attachment.sig>