[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Apr 19 15:02:59 CEST 2011
Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Michael, > > >>Nonetheless, the important factor for me is: Will it cost the same amount >>of money per year? This is "tragedy of the commons" problem, so as long as >>the cost for holding the PI resource is the same before and after this >>proposal, I don't have any problems with it. > > >>If it's all of a sudden a lot cheaper, I oppose the change. > > > Initially the proposal did include a change in the cost for PI IPv6, however > it was decided to not include that into this discussion as cost for PI isn't > decided within the community but in the AGM meeting. > > Having said this, there will be a public discussion behind this to get input > from the community to review the cost of specifically PI IPv6 as input for > the chairs to take into the AGM meeting. > > It wasn't my intention to ask for cheaper PI IPv6, the opposite in fact, I > personally think that PI IPv6 should be more expensive than currently > especially when the multihoming requirement would be dropped. We should keep in mind that the RIPE NCC, working (+ charging for its services) according to the policies as agreed by the Community is NOT an internet tax and fund-redistribution entity! Usually, the cost for a particular service is set to reflect the effort in the NCC to provide the registration (and associated) services. There is no way to redistribute a "FIB-entry-surcharge" to whatever or whoever believes to "suffer" from this proposed change in policy. > The proposal as it is, is to have the same requirements for PI IPv6 as one > would face if they would signup to become a LIR. Not really. It would only remove special (and imho artificial to begin with) *operational* requirments (i.e. multi-homing, ASing) from the access to the resource. Registering a prefix in the Resource Registry by the RIPE NCC should require the same effort as IPv4 PI and the current IPv6 PI. Actually - it should become cheaper - effortwise - because the NCC can drop the superficial and ineffective "checks" made after assignment, to assess if the MH requirements were or still are met. > Kind regards, > Erik Bais Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]