[address-policy-wg] PA ??? life after death

Hi Maxim,

I think that you are seeing just one side of the issue.

I do not know details of your case, especially how the policies has been 
violated.

But try for a moment to look at this from NCC perspective. If you would allow 
end-users of PA space to keep it as PI, then you would end up with lots of the 
/25+ prefixes in the DB. They would be either useless or someone had to 
aggregate them. Who would that be? The original LIR. It would continue the 
business as usual and it may even, as a bonus, run with less expanses (if it 
had just /22 - 200EUR annually instead of 1500).

Now if you allow PA to PI conversion I think that there would be lots of LIRs 
doing precisely that. Converting its PA to PI, transferring it to another LIR 
and closing its own, cutting their expenses by factor of 10 (approx.).

For the second mentioned problem, the transfer of blocked resources to another 
LIR: If you would as LIR lie to RIPE NCC and as a result you would get more 
resources or make let's say IPv6 PIs to ISPs. Then by allowing the transfer of 
such resources you would make it legitimate. Especially in the are of multi-
LIR companies, closing ones LIR for policy violation would be a joke.

If you are an end-user it might be unfair to you, but it is a risk of doing a 
business with a third party (connected with less expenses from your part). You 
may try to sue the LIR for not providing you services you have in your 
contract.

If you are LIR which is being closed and you have broke the policy then it is 
fair and fully justified and it is on you to make sure end-users are not 
impacted by this.

If you are LIR and did not brake the policy, then use arbitration to counter 
that.

Long story short, PI in IPv4 is not coming back. We as community may change it 
in IPv6, but as someone already pointed out - no IPv4 policy is likely to pass 
in APWG. Also allowing transfer of resources which is being closed for policy 
violation would resulted in RIPE being defenseless against bad actors.

Best Regards,
Martin

Post scriptum: IPv6 is not harder or slower to deploy than IPv4. If you would 
like to make IPv6-only network without transition mechanisms from scratch, it 
would be easier to make than IPv4-only. You wouldn't need CGN and also HA 
would be much easier (multiple routers on segment and so on). Technically the 
IPv6 should be faster, allows more freedom in network architecture and should 
require less logic in the network itself. It is mainly political problem, not 
technical.

Dne čtvrtek 7. března 2019 6:59:52 CET, Maxim A Piskunov napsal(a):
> Hi, Kai!
> 
> We discuss last week and here some points of view.
> 
> >And if you really need save IPv4 space for your business, you're free to
> 
> become an LIR, adhere to the policies, and be a happy camper.
> 1. Some organisation will never become LIR (some institutes of government,
> etc)
> 2. Organization who prefer not to do cross-border payments (accounting
> issues)
> They coming and asking for addresses, LIR can allocate for example /24 from
> PA and next, if LIR will be closed, end-user may loose addressed
> It's happens because no procedures for protection such case.
> 
> My position is to change policy for improving security for end-users.
> PI - it's safety for end-user. So why policy does not allow conversion PA
> to PI?
> Why PA addresses on closure LIR return to community pool instead keeping
> addresses for current end-user? Why policy still have no soft rules for
> this case? LIR closed -> resources converted to PI and passed to another
> LIR. It's a solution.
> 
> >IPv4 is over, I strongly suggest to stop building business based on legacy
> 
> technology
> IPv4 it's cheap and fast way to deploy network. IPv4 is over in pool but
> still available via LIR's, so please do not say that IPv4 is totally died.
> For places on Earth where no Internet connectivity, IPv4 coming first. And
> only when infrastructure is ready IPv6 may come.
> You trying to propagate IPv6 but you live in more ideal world and thinking
> from another point of view.
> I am not asking for propagation IPv6, I am asking for freely usage IPv4,
> for dropping not needed administrative obstacles.
> 
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 03:16, Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org> wrote:
> > Moin,
> > 
> > am 06.03.2019 um 23:40 schrieb Maxim A Piskunov:
> > > Hello, Kai!
> > > 
> > > As I know, PI for IPv4 not possible to obtain for new users.
> > 
> > Sure; IPv4 is over, I strongly suggest to stop building business based on
> > legacy technology.
> > 
> > Having stated the obvoius, and correct me if I'm wrong, it is possible to
> > buy IPv4 space these days, no? And if you really need save IPv4 space for
> > your business, you're free to become an LIR, adhere to the policies, and
> > be
> > a happy camper.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > -kai

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190308/9ffd6f4c/attachment.sig>