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

[Marco Hogewoning marcoh@localhost]

On Jan 16, 2008, at 12:23 PM, <michael.dillon@localhost <michael.dillon@localhost 
> wrote:
> The need for such extranet addresses is a good reason for
> RIPE to allow PI allocations/assignments of IPv6 addresses
> but 2008-01 is the wrong way to go about it.
>
> Here is my wish list for IPv6 PI:
>
> - No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6.
> - special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders
> - contract signed between RIPE and PI holders that covers fee
>  payments, and revocation/return of address blocks
> - special known superblock from which all PI allocations are made
>  so that people can manage their filters
> - /48 minimum PI allocation but larger aggregate is also possible
> - contact every IPv4 PI holder by email and inform them of the
>  new rules for IPv6 PI allocations
>
> In my opinion that should be followed by another policy change
> which requires RIPE membership, annual fee payment and a signed
> contract for any future ASN assignments or IPv4 PI address blocks.
Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from becoming  
a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ?
Next to that I see a huge increase in administrative load for the NCC  
which could result in bigger financial risks which in turn ends up at  
the LIR's.
--
MarcoH