Re: [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)

[Michael.Dillon@localhost]

> I support PI for IPv6 but I personally do not like the section:
> 
> "Expiry for Assignments:

I agree that putting in an expiry date for non-experimental
allocations is a bad idea. The only time an expiry date makes
sense is when the allocation is being used for some kind
of network research on a temporary basis.

RIPE has the opportunity to change its policies at any
time and if it is necessary to claw back those allocations
then it could be done by a future change of policy. The
people who make that future policy will be better informed
about the situation than we are because they will have factual
data about PI allocations. We can only guess about what will
happen.

It is far better to make sure that all organizations
who receive assignments or allocations direct from 
RIPE have some kind of contractual obligation to RIPE
and that contract includes the obligation to maintain
accurate contact information. It doesn't mean that they
have to publish the information, just make sure RIPE knows
when they move or get bought by someone else so that if
the policy changes in the future, we know where to contact
them. This way we avoid the swamp problem where nobody knows
how to contact many of the orgs that received swamp allocations.
They may still exist at new addresses with a new name
but we have lost touch.

--Michael Dillon