[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)

On 7 Jul 2010, at 23:16, Philip Smith wrote:

> The proposal has *never* been about PI, ever. Alain and I were requested to include specific wording to that effect. So we did. :-)

I'm not sure the words have been picked though. :-)

What is the rationale to stop assigning PI ?

The PI ban appears to have been introduced between v1 and v2 of this draft, where was the discussion that led to this wording ?

The spirit of the proposal appears to be to conserve v4 addressing, to assist with v6 adoption.  Fine.  But, what about for multihomed end sites that do not need a /22, or have ncc memebrship budget ?  What's the *real* difference between an LIR with one end user (their own infrastructure), and a non-LIR with PI ?  Other than €1,300 a year...

Andy