[address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)

A PI assignments via LIR's should be possible (make both options possible?) 
if you ask me and also the costs will go via the LIR in that case.

A holder off PI space should be allowed to offer PA space to clients (but no 
special routing for the clients!). So it is only different in the RIPE NCC 
whois database and not in the routing table.

With kind regards, Met vriendelijke groet,

Mark Scholten
Stream Service
Web: http://www.streamservice.nl/
E-mail: mark at streamservice.nl
NOC: http://www.mynoc.eu/
NOC e-mail: noc at streamservice.nl
Tel.: +31 (0)642 40 86 02
KVK: 08141074
BTW: NL104278274B01
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shane Kerr" <shane at time-travellers.org>
To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] New correct proposal (Was: 2008-01/2008-02)


On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:50:29PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> [..]
> >Here is my wish list for IPv6 PI:
> >
> >- No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6.
> >- special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders
> >- contract signed between RIPE and PI holders that covers fee
> >  payments, and revocation/return of address blocks
> >- special known superblock from which all PI allocations are made
> >  so that people can manage their filters
> >- /48 minimum PI allocation but larger aggregate is also possible
> >- contact every IPv4 PI holder by email and inform them of the
> >  new rules for IPv6 PI allocations
> >
> >In my opinion that should be followed by another policy change
> >which requires RIPE membership, annual fee payment and a signed
> >contract for any future ASN assignments or IPv4 PI address blocks.
>
> Now *THAT* is a solid policy proposal that I would be willing to support.

I agree completely.

--
Shane