<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Changes to PI Policy?

  • From: Denesh Bhabuta < >
  • Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:53:51 +0100
  • Reply-to: Denesh Bhabuta < >

--On Wednesday, April 16, 2003 09:06:16 +0100 Peter Gradwell peter@localhost wrote:
The concept of PI space is definitely not broken. There is a
The concept is not broken - the policy is - and it is the policy (and the associated assignment policy) that needs fixing.

very real need for organisations, large and small, to be able
to connect to multiple Internet providers without having to pay
several thousand euros to ripe and spend a week filling in
forms to become a LIR.
The forms are not exactly hard and 'several thousand euros'? It is only a couple of thousand Euros.

The way I see it, PI space should be chargeable - an annual charge maybe.. (all non-LIR PI holders get away with paying nothing for PI space, whereas the burden then falls on those who are LIRs). Why should a PI holder get 'free' services from RIPE?

If the internet addressing structure is broken then change it
and if you're running out of numbers then invent some more.
We should not be putting financial and administrative barriers
in the way of people who want to be multiply connected.
erm, want to come up with some ideas rather than making blanket 'management type' statements such as 'fix this and I don't care how'? The PI Task force was set up for exchange of ideas to 'fix' the issue. It would be useful for you to look at the history of this, and look at past documents and the LIR-WG mailing list. Look at the real world constraints - and then tell us what you think is the best way forward.

In any case, welcome to the RIPE community Peter. :-) Last time I asked you about RIPE stuff you said you were not interested in such things or running networks. 180 degree turn? ;-P

Denesh




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>