[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Tue Oct 1 00:13:05 CEST 2013
Hi Sacha, On 9/30/13 9:27 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:22:52PM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote: >> There are only two paths, from the RIPE NCC to LIR and from the RIPE >> NCC to End user (we may decide to change the name) via the Sponsoring >> LIR. > > I would be in favour of converting all resources into "independent > resources" and the path going, in all cases: hum, that will open a lot of can of worms, what do we do if every current LIR decides to become a customer of a Sponsoring LIR? > > RIR -> Sponsoring LIR -> End User. > Advantages: > - End Users can transfer "their" resources to a different Sponsoring LIR ok... > > - Specialist LIRs can be established that have the necessary skills to > manage resources properly, End Users wouldn't have to worry about > resource management and it may result in reducing the work-load on the > RIR.. we already have those entities in a few countries. I know at least of a few entities that mostly do IR management in various countries in the region.. Nobody is stopping the Specialists to just open a registry and start offering services. We are already doing that and we have just registered a few weeks ago :-) > > Disadvantages: > > - This opens the door to the establishment of "N(ational)IRs", something > which some states have expressed an interest in. I would not see this a disadvantage. > > - There is a probability of de-aggregation of resources as they move > between Sponsoring LIRs - could possibly be mitigated by making the > minimum assignments big enough. this would probably be a big disadvantage. > > - RIR membership will likely decline - this could also be an advantage. > Not really, we will have less LIRs paying a lot more. > rgds, > Sascha Luck cheers, elvis > > PS: in such a scenario I would even consider supporting 2012-08 ;) PS: me too :-) but this scenario is out of scope of this policy proposal as the policy proposal does not cover IPv4 :-)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]