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

I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just lazy people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same situation.

Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts, there are two choices:
1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI holders to the end-user contract
2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI and PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign end user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract).


Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [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
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.