[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI AssignmentSize)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dmitry Kiselev
dmitry at volia.net
Wed Sep 20 15:56:19 CEST 2006
Hi! On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:21:27PM +0400, Gennady Abramov wrote: > > > This story is about PA/LIR, where (again, in the theory) all is quite > > > simply. No money -> closing contarct (as in terms of it) -> getting back > > > IPs. > > > > According to current IPv4 Address Policy PI address space should be > > ASSIGNED to END USERS ONLY. ISP usually provide service for some > > (or many) organizations, i.e. contact info for some ranges may be > > very different. Although ISP is close to its customers they are > > different companies - end-users in Policy terms. ISP with PI can't > > create separate DB records and it is violate section 4.0 of Policy. > > It is violate item 5 from Your opinion quoted above too. ;) > > > > Since PA have no such disadvantages and have a good scale capability > > it should be used by ISPs. PI is still good for small/medium > > *enterprises* which large enough to do multihoming. > And, don't forget that you even can do multihoming without PI address > space, by multihoming of PA assigment (if LIR permitted it). > The only advantage of PI's is that customer doesn't needs to be > renumbered if he leaves his primary ISP. ...and does not pay any money! ;) It is major argument for most of PI holders. > > > >>> Max, how say that fees will be equal? As for me, PI/24+ASN should have > > > >>> yearly fee acceptable for most small companies. If they really need it, > > > >>> they will pay for it. Once payments stoped - resources returned and > > > >>> ready to reassignment. > > > >> > > > >> Seems to be very reasonable. For example, as it was a long before. > > > > > > > > Once payment stops resources are not returned (as far as my example > > > > shows below). See: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ncc-services-wg/2004/msg00100.html > > > > > > > > for an example I've been tracking for 5 years now (company bankrupt). > > > > > > > > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/membership/alloclist.txt > > > > shows the following still: > > > > il.doarnet > > > > DoarNet Ltd. > > > > > > > > 19981211 212.77.128/19 ALLOCATED PA > > > > > > > > So in theory your idea sounds nice. In practice it doesn't work. -- Dmitry Kiselev
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI AssignmentSize)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]