RE: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

[<michael.dillon@localhost]

> When a customer comes to an ISP saying I have a PI and here 
> is my prefix.
> I'm assuming most ISP's do a DB lookup to confirm those 
> details are correct, before advertising, are we saying RIPE 
> now need to notify ISP's that a prefix should be withdrawn 
> because it hasn't been paid for ?

Why should RIPE notify anyone when the PI block has already
been removed from the RIPE DB?

> Depending on the cost / importance of the contract with the 
> ISP are they going to pay these fees? Will the fees be part 
> of the ISP's contract so avoid the situation above?

The contract between RIPE and the holder of the PI block does
not involve the ISP at all. I know that IPv4 PIs are currently
acquired through an ISP but I am suggesting that we stop this
practice, and for IPv6 PI allocations, we only do them with
a direct two-party contractual and commercial relationship
between the PI holder and RIPE.

> As for the whole non-routable question. Would the block then 
> be charged at a different rate because there won't be 
> additional cost of a route entry in the global table? 

Not at all. Routability is a choice that the PI holder makes.
Nothing that RIPE does has any effect on routability. 

> The point some are trying to make is there are few LIR's that 
> can fully justify IPv6 PA space right now because they don't 
> have the customers. 

There is no customer requirement to get IPv6 PA space.

> Perhaps the policy needs to change for the initial IPv6 PA so 
> new & existing LIR's can get IPv6 even if they have no customers.

They already can do this.

--Michael Dillon