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

Dear Peers,
I think it’s clear this will never reach a consensus. What are we still discussing here ? There’s nothing left to discuss any more. It’s a waste of valuable time.

And for the record, I’m strongly against the proposal, the current system works.

Had a lovely Sunday evening everyone !

With Kind Regards,
Dominik Nowacki

Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969<tel:08750969>. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net<mailto:abuse at clouvider.net> of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

On 20 May 2018, at 17:54, Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org<mailto:wusel+ml at uu.org>> wrote:

Am 20.05.2018 um 11:02 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
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

Luckily, it wouldn't be the "same way"; this time, PIv6 address holders are already bound by the »RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended from time to time«. For IPv4 assignments that predated the PI/PA distinction, e. g. from the early years like 1992/1993, nothing like that was agreed on (check ripe-072, ripe-104), so NCC's blackmailing ("sign this contract or we'll redistribute your used v4 space") was, trying to be polite here, a bit on the weird side.

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).

So, what would be the advantage? Wouldn't this simply create the incentive to have dirt-cheap ISPs running on End User address, which to prevent seems to be the motivation to start this discussion initially?

Regards,
-kai



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180520/50ba8c2c/attachment.html>