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

Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:

Hi,

[...]
>>     What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem
>>     to be it.

> For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing work whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably the most objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), neither I plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to me". I only had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I started playing with IPv6.

> Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When anybody submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start with this kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not really smart.

Now it's getting personal, which I really don't approve. After read
throught the whole thread it seems that no one else asking the same or
similar questions is getting the same treatment, so I have to ask
myself why I do.

> So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing?

I don't want to repeat myself or others.

> Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the overall discussion.

Even *IF* the fee issue wouldn't be touched we would have the issue
that some entities - like the RIPE NCC - cannot ever be a RIPE member,
hence the use of PI space at the meetings. This will apply to others.

To sum this up: I'm totally against this change as it *will* create a
whole bunch of new problems, obviously isn't anywhere near a possible
(even rought) consensus and I don't see a positive cost / gain ratio.

Best
Max