[address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

I think we introduced IPv6 PI because we needed to be able to give
address space to entities that only need internal address space, want to
be multi-homed, but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because
they would only use it internally for their own business (for example a
SAAS provider hosting it's own product inhouse).

When we stop allowing IPv6 PI we would force those entities to, either
become a LIR and pay a lot more for the same IPv6 address space, or they
will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea
I think.

Jan Hugo


On 05/16/2018 02:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
>
> I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
>
> 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
>
> 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
>
> 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
>
> 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
>
> 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by:
> 	a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff)
> 	b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user
> 	c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
>
> Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
>
> I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
>
> And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>  
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Kind regards

Jan Hugo Prins
/DevOps Engineer/
<https://betterbe.com>
Auke Vleerstraat 140 E
7547 AN Enschede
CC no. 08097527
<https://www.kvk.nl/orderstraat/product-kiezen/?kvknummer=080975270000>
*T* +31 (0) 53 48 00 694 <tel:+31534800694>
*E* jprins at betterbe.com <mailto:jprins at betterbe.com>
*M* +31 (0)6 263 58 951 <tel:+31%20%280%296%20263%2058%20951>
www.betterbe.com <https://www.betterbe.com>
BetterBe accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the
consequences of any actions taken on the basis
of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently
confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited.