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

On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from becoming
>> a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ?
>
> This was the point I was trying to raise at the last RIPE meeting. I
> think it may make sense to make a scalable policy that doesn't have a
> distinction between LIRs and enterprises. The border between the two
> is porous and a policy that doesn't assume LIRs being significantly
> larger than enterprises may be called for.
>
> I would suggest that instead of two policies we should have one.
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vegoda-v6-policy.pdf
>
> Thoughts?


You have my vote :) Not that I think it's a strict requirement but the  
question could be raised if we need to introduce something like a 'NCC  
customer' next to the current membership to differentiate between  
those who are actually running an LIR, assigning end-user blocks from  
a larger aggregate and people simply having one or two single PI  
blocks which can't hold any suballocations/assignments.

-- 
MarcoH