[address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:05:29PM +0200, David Monosov wrote:

Hello,

BTW, your v6 MX is down :-)

> > To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the
> > imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for
> > most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free).
> > Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other
> > endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI.
> The proposal itself states that end users will be subject to a fee. Based on
> your point above I take it that you favor interpreting this is "a non-trivial
> fee", and it seems to me that you implicitly suggest it should be higher than
> the costs the RIPE NCC will incur directly from processing such end user
> assignments.

I was thinking of about 100 EUR/y. This is not community consensus or
has been discussed anywhere, this is the amount of money I thought of a
couple of years ago (before 2007-01) when thinking about a model for
IPv6 PI. I have accepted that we need some sort of PI, but noone wants
the same swamp "everyone who tells a few fairy tales gets free space
without any contractual relation" space that was there with IPv4
already. So we discussed a model similar to a domain registrar, with
recurring fee paid by the enduser.  If it's not paid it expires.  Of
course it isn't that easy for IP addresses, as you cannot revoke an
announcement another ASN is doing that easily.

Basically the yearly invoice should start people thinking about whether
they still need that resource. Maybe they've merged a decade ago and the
only device still using the old address space is the old 9pin dot-matrix
printer in the basement. Maybe something else that can be easily
renumbered. Maybe it's free already. I've seen "networks" claiming to
multihome that run two tunnels through their dynamic SOHO DSL line. Or
it seems to be a sport for a number of people in this business to air
their own prefix and even ASN, even though they only have their Xbox and
their laptop in it and peer with their workplace and a colleague. They
won't let go of this, but at least they should be reminded that eats a
FIB slot everywhere.

On the other hand, whoever _needs_ to be multihomed or _needs_ to avoid
renumbering should be able to do that. Serious multihoming is more
expensive than the number I had in mind (physical diversity, anyone?).
If your network is sufficiently complex that renumbering it takes a long
time (=is "expensive" work), then you can invest the money into PI to
avoid it as well.

And no, I don't believe in that whole "emerging market, we can't pay it,
you're killing our industry and our democracy with it" thing that
someone is probably going to raise (or at least think).

> > So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old
> > resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door.
> and while I don't see this draft as an explicit condition to getting IPv6 out
> the door (although I do see the benefits of doing so) and its intention is clear
> to me,

I do. I will raise hell against any PIv6 proposal that does not include
some serious contractual relation with the enduser, and nothing forces
updated contact information better than a yearly invoice to be paid.

> The trouble, however, lies in the details. For example, while Shane's take on
> the implementation of this proposal is that it will result in no cost or minimal
> cost for end users - your interpretation seems to be one of an opportunity to
> enforce something akin to a routing slot tax which would be sufficiently high to
> discourage waste; two quite conflicting points of view stemming from the
> implementation of the the very same policy document!

I don't think 100 EUR/y would be "sufficiently high to discourage
(deliberate) waste". It should force people to think about it. Every
year when they receive their invoice.  Apart from the few hardcore
people that think it's their goddamn right to have their appartment
network in every FIB worldwide it's a price vs. gain thing for most. At
the moment the price is very low, often not directly associated with the
resource at all. Thus even a very low gain or no gain at all is enough
to keep the resource unchanged (not necessarily "used"). I want endusers
to start thinking about this.

Again, this number is my personal private opinion, it hasn't really been
discussed with anyone.

But yes, people expect different things of 2007-01, as with every
policy. This is what I'm personally expecting/hoping. But I could not
tell whether I'm voicing the single dissenting opinion or people
actually agree with my arguments.

Bernhard