Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

[Shane Kerr shane@localhost]

Sascha,

Your concerns are possibly reasonable (see details inline, after this
introduction). But I have two main issues with your opposition:

     1. The current system is, quite frankly, shit. It is embarrassing
        that the RIPE region has continued to put up with such a poorly
        managed way to track number resources. Any mechanism to track
        these resources is better than what we have now (which is
        NOTHING).
     2. No policy is going to make everyone happy. We have worked at
        this for many months now (the proposal is 2007-01, not 2008-01).
        At some point we have to recognize that what we have is not
        perfect, but will ever be perfect, so we should adopt it anyway.
        To quote Voltaire: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (the perfect is
        the enemy of the good).

On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 02:46 +0100, Sascha Luck wrote:
> I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low
> enough not to be a significant barrier to entry even to small
> businesses or pro-bono organisations such as OSS projects or
> charities. Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot
> lower for PIv6, if only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;)

I think the RIPE community sets policies, but details - like specific
fees - are implemented by the RIPE NCC. This is a good model and has
worked for a long time. I trust the RIPE NCC will set reasonably low
fees.

If the "barrier" you want to remove for IPv6 is knowing who is actually
using the address space, I think that you are misguided. That "barrier"
needs to be firmly in place, before we end up with the same mess in IPv6
as we have in IPv4.

> I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea
> needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. 

Since this is not a part of the proposal justification or details (I
think), we should not have to worry about it.

I agree it sounds quite awful though. :)

> Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there
> should not 
> be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want
> it" should
> be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6
> assignment. 

Does this policy mention changing justification at all? I don't think it
does, but I might have missed it.

If you think justification needs to be changed for IPv6 allocation, then
a new proposal is a good idea. Start a thread, we can discuss it!

--
Shane