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

[Florian Weimer fw@localhost]

* Leo Vegoda:

> On 16 Jan 2008, at 18:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * michael dillon:
>>
>>> - No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6.
>>> - special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders
>>
>> How do you handle lack of payment?  Reuse the prefix?  That seems
>> like a
>> bad idea to me.
>
> If this is a bad idea...
>
>> I would also see a mandate to keep current address information,
>> including legal details (register of companies number etc.) in the
>> WHOIS database.  RIPE NCC will investigate cases if proof is
>> presented that something is wrong in the database (bouncing email,
>> non-working phone number, bouncing snail mail, lack of matching entry
>> in the register of companies).
>
> ... then what is the enforcement mechanism here?

The same as above.  This would be an additional process, on top of the
yearly fee, not a replacement.

> You've just defined a system where the RIPE NCC will guarantee the
> uniqueness of address space for a one-time fee *and* allow registrants
> to remain anonymous after the first 12 months. I can see a definite
> market for something like this.

We already face the problem that LIRs are somewhat pseudonymous.
There's no easy way to determine which LIR controls which address
blocks.