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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not
> really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we
> are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't
> worked to resolve that problem.

You're misremembering the problem.  The reason for the IPv6 PI policy
was not that it was going to help deployment of IPv6, but instead that
the lack of easily available, provider-portable IPv6 address space would
create unnecessary obstacles to deployment.  This hasn't changed.

> Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means
> simplicity for both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a
> (marginal) administrative cost decrease, but also simplification for
> the policies, less interpretation errors, less people trying to bend
> the policies to the limit, etc., etc.
There are ~2600 IPv6 PI assignments associated with ~2450 individual 
organisations.  Your proposal seems to require that these 
end-user-to-LIR contracts are replaced with end-user-to-RIPENCC contracts.

Can you elaborate on how you see this being handled? And what would the 
RIPE NCC do if an end-user declined to change?

Nick