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

Hi,

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering gert at localhost wrote:

> Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version
> of 2007-01 (v4).  We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase
> to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your
> opinions now.

I support the spirit of this proposal, but I have major issues with imple-
mentation. Nick does brush this of as "operational", but that is where 
the rubber meets the road. 
Please also note that my concerns are really mostly with the future of PIv6 
as PIv4 is really a lost cause in my opinion.

At the end of the day my argument is really with barriers, such as fees:

I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low enough not
to be a significant barrier to entry even to small businesses or pro-bono
organisations such as OSS projects or charities.
Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot lower for PIv6, if 
only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;)

I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be 
stepped on. Hard. Now. Besides, whom goes that "tax" to? $VENDOR? After all, 
everyone with PI space (multihoming assumed) has to carry full tables too, no?
And those whose *business* it is to provide transit should surely have calcula-
ted upgrades into the price of their service? I don't think that RIPE's func-
tion is (or should be) to act as a tax collector for LIRs...
I'm aware that the setting of fees is a function of the RIPE NCC and not the 
community at large, but the process of setting those fees is not transparent 
to me. OTOH, maybe it is better to leave the setting of fees to others than 
those who would want to tax the end-users for their incredible cheek in trying
to break away from SP lock-in.

Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there should not 
be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want it" should
be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6 assignment. 

Having said all that, I think that keeping track of PI space *is* a good idea and 
bringing end-users into the RIPE community is an even better one. If the above 
issues can somehow be addressed, I would support 2007-01.

Regards,
Sascha Luck
SLU3-RIPE