Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

[Dmitry Kiselev dmitry@localhost]

Hi!

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:21:27PM +0400, Gennady Abramov wrote:

> > > This story is about PA/LIR, where (again, in the theory) all is quite
> > > simply. No money -> closing contarct (as in terms of it) -> getting back
> > > IPs.
> > 
> > According to current IPv4 Address Policy PI address space should be
> > ASSIGNED to END USERS ONLY. ISP usually provide service for some
> > (or many) organizations, i.e. contact info for some ranges may be
> > very different. Although ISP is close to its customers they are
> > different companies - end-users in Policy terms. ISP with PI can't
> > create separate DB records and it is violate section 4.0 of Policy.
> > It is violate item 5 from Your opinion quoted above too. ;)
> > 
> > Since PA have no such disadvantages and have a good scale capability
> > it should be used by ISPs. PI is still good for small/medium
> > *enterprises* which large enough to do multihoming.
> And, don't forget that you even can do multihoming without PI address
> space, by multihoming of PA assigment (if LIR permitted it).
> The only advantage of PI's is that customer doesn't needs to be
> renumbered if he leaves his primary ISP.


...and does not pay any money! ;)  It is major argument for most of
PI holders.


> > > >>> Max, how say that fees will be equal? As for me, PI/24+ASN should have
> > > >>> yearly fee acceptable for most small companies. If they really need it,
> > > >>> they will pay for it. Once payments stoped - resources returned and
> > > >>> ready to reassignment.
> > > >>
> > > >> Seems to be very reasonable. For example, as it was a long before.
> > > >
> > > > Once payment stops resources are not returned (as far as my example
> > > > shows below).  See:
> > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ncc-services-wg/2004/msg00100.html
> > > >
> > > > for an example I've been tracking for 5 years now (company bankrupt).
> > > >
> > > > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt
> > > > shows the following still:
> > > > il.doarnet
> > > >     DoarNet Ltd.
> > > >
> > > >     19981211    212.77.128/19   ALLOCATED PA
> > > >
> > > > So in theory your idea sounds nice.  In practice it doesn't work.


-- 
Dmitry Kiselev