[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: proposal to remove IPv6 PI

Am 19.05.2018 um 15:09 schrieb Sascha Luck [ml]:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:17:43AM +0000, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>> but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide
>>> connectivity to an End User.
>>
>> Since when has this been a requirement?
>>
>> Section 2.4 of ripe-699 defines LIRs and describes them as "primarily"
>> providing addresses for network services that they provide. Have I
>> misunderstood the policy, or is there currently a requirement that LIR
>> provide network connectivity to the users of the addresses they assign or
>> sub-allocate?
>
> It's not a formal requirement but, de-facto, if the holder of PA
> resources wants connectivity, they have to get it from the LIR.
> Otherwise, why would there be a necessity for
> "provider-aggregateable" resources?

I don't see this true anymore. Just request e. g. a /47 APNIC ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE space, announce it under your (APNIC) ASN, works. Same works in the RIPE region, and from my perspective that's how it needs to work. As an LIR you receive a big chunk of address space, you distribute it to your sub-organisations, ISPs, End Users — which not necessarily receive IP connectivity from you.

Regards,
-kai