[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Apr 8 15:52:11 CEST 2008
Hi, On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 03:35:53PM +0200, Frederic wrote: > > That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI > > assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01. > > i know, i know ;) > > 2007-1 is to determine : proposal states that a contractual relationship > between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be > established before the End User receives Internet number resources Exactly. > contractual relationship will be made with Fees. we cannot occult this. > (the amount is not the fact of proposal). This is also true. > Today i have choice, i have a relationship with my LIR (contractual or > not) i ask AS and PI (is it justify regarding RIPE condition) and i have > it. i do not need to have contractual relationship. Today, you already need a contractual relationship with someone to get the AS and IPv4 PI space routed for you. So having another contract that basically specifies "if I cease to exist, my AS and PI fall back to the RIPE NCC" is not *that* much more effort. Given the past discussions about 2006-01, there will *not* be IPv6 PI space without a clear contractual relationship. So you need to decide what you want: do you want IPv6 PI? In that case, please really consider whether 2007-01 so bad that you can never ever accept it - because if 2007-01 is not accepted, there will NOT be IPv6 PI any time soon. > we do not support: because we want keep the free of the choice. and the With 2007-01, you *do* have the choice - you can use any LIR you want (if you change LIRs, just move your contract) - if all LIRs in your region are inacceptable, you can have a direct contract with the RIPE NCC. So you actually have *more* choice than today. Today, there is no way to do business directly with the RIPE NCC. > argument to said we have "dead compagny" and we need to know by a > contractual relationship is not for us a good way, A procedure seems to > be a good way... a procedure like domain name. Domain names require a) a contract, and b) a yearly fee (at least for domains under most commercially relevant top-level domains). 2007-01 is actually modelled quite similar to the way the .DE TLD operates. Please re-read the discussions about 2006-01, and 2007-01, and think about what you *really* want - good for you, and good for the Internet as a whole. The end result will always be a compromise, because there is no way to make everybody happy at the same time - but we need to find a compromise that is better than what we currently have (which is *bad*). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]