[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marcin Gondek
drixter at e-utp.net
Tue Jan 15 23:29:19 CET 2008
Hello, So maybe we can make this way: There is some membership free for PI user and then some yearly payment to keep it working. Please understand, not anyone have to be LIR > First of all, I don't think the majority is afraid of the idea of PI > itself (the old "carriers want to constrain their customers" myth), the > majority is afraid of running it like it is currently done for IPv4 in > the RIPE region. I'm talking about PI space that is visible in the DFZ > here of course, unannounced PI space should mostly be covered by ULA. [...] > but I don't think there is any legal loophole where you could apply it > to the already assigned space. > > Bernhard So maybe we can make this way: Make some membership fee for PI user and then some yearly payment to keep it working. For example: - 500E setup fee - 100E for ASN request for this PI Plus some kind monitoring, if PI addresses in request are requested for public use, not internal then: - have to be visible by RIPE router more than 75% time in year from date of assignment + 1 month. - 100E yearly maintenance If there availability time is smaller than 75%, again there is a setup fee or addresses backing to RIPE. Also ASN can be taken back to the RIPE. If PI addresses are requested for internal usage: - 200E yearly maintenance Every PI-member can have only one /48 prefix if we need more, then have to be a LIR, have to have a legal business in RIPE region and etc. Then, RIPE make a special /32 where those /48 are stored (for easy filtering). Please understand, not everyone have to be LIR because they don't need it to be, but they need PI address because they have >1 upstreams. It's very popular here in Poland. Now I hearing for people: "We don't implement IPv6 because there is no PI procedure. We don't want to be a LIR." I'm not a LIR, I just wondering, maybe someone will agree with me for this PI idea. Regards, -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office at e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]