This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Sun May 20 13:17:46 CEST 2018
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > 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. 2400 IPv6 PI holders seem to disagree with you. > 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 The RIPE NCC argued that 2007-01 authorised them to convert an implicit end-user contract for PI holders to an explicit contract. I.e. this was an update to the terms and conditions between a contract which already existed. It looks like you're suggesting that the RIPE NCC take the sponsoring LIR business by force. This is unlikely to be legal in most of the jurisdictions that the RIPE NCC deals with. What happens if either the end user or the LIR refuse to "convert" the end-user-to-LIR contract to an end-user-to-RIPE-NCC 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). I still don't understand what problem you're trying to solve here, or why you suggest that eliminating PI assignments is better than keeping them. The rationale that you presented in your talk at APWG was: > - Simplification of the policy and avoid discussions/inconsistencies related to sub-assignments. > > – Contractual fairness among different type of IPv6 resource holders. There are minor issues relating to policy inconsistencies. Arguably, the most serious of those has been fixed already. I disagree that there is contractual unfairness. PI holders don't get the right to sub-assign and they don't get benefits of membership of the RIPE NCC association. Also, what happens with ASNs? All ASNs are direct assignments from the RIPE NCC, which means that unless you're also talking about getting rid of ASN assignments and LIR sponsorship, all of the legal baggage associated with that needs to stay in place. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]