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

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:25:27PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
>I don't see why this would mean "lower" number of LIRs?
>
>Actually, I think will be the contrary. I think most of the end-users will become LIRs, especially if the AGM makes a smart move about how to attract them (fee scheme, contract, etc.).

I don't see why this would be desirable. If every end-user had to
become a LIR, it would blow the NCC up into this humongous
bureaucratic apparatus and, perhaps more importantly, make it a
regional monopoly in the truest sense - every business and person
needing internet resources would be *forced* to deal with the
NCC.

>I don't see also why this would create more disaggregation.
>The actual end-users will become LIRs. The actual LIRs will remain as LIRs. Both of them will announce the same addressing space.
>In summary: Who needs to have stable addresses and avoid renumbering if changing ISP or data center, or whatever, will be an LIRs.

We are coming at this from opposite sides. What I would like to
see is that businesses and people who need (portable) resources
don't *have to* become LIRs. Instead they contact their friendly
neighbourhood sponsoring LIR and deal through them. 

>What I'm missing from your rationale for having those opinions?

Many of the LIRs in existence today *do not want to be LIRs*.
They have become LIRs mostly because it was the only way for them
to get (more) IPv4 resources or they needed portable resources.
These LIRs have no interest and, often, no skills in dealing with
the RIPE NCC.

What I am proposing is, in essence, that LIRs become "sponsoring
LIRs" for all resources. No more difference between "ASSIGNED PA"
and "ALLOCATED PI", everything becomes, for practical purposes,
"SUB-ALLOCATED"

This enables LIRs with an interest to become resource management
services for those who do *not* have this interest. 
End Users can choose a LIR to provide these services, if they are
not happy with it, they can chose another and -that's the
important difference - take their resources with them without
having to renumber. Or, if they so chose, can become LIRs
themselves. 

I've actually heard, as an argument for NAT66, that the users in
question want to deploy that so they can avoid renumbering when
changing connectivity providers. This could be avoided if those
resources became portable.

It should also have a positive effect on ripedb data quality if
all resources are under the care of LIRs with the skills and an
interest in their management.

It reduces harm to end users' operations if a LIR is shut down
for whatever reason. End users can simply switch to another
sponsoring LIR.

It may solve the issues that some large (governmental) orgs are
having with policies and distributed resource management.


There may be a de-aggregation effect, this can possibly be
mitigated by minimum sub-allocation sizes though that may be
wasteful. 

"SUB-ALLOCATED PA" already does a lot of this but a few changes
are needed:

 - make SUB-ALLOCATED resources portable

 - change the subsequent allocation criteria to take account of
   SUB-ALLOCATED space, so it is possible for "sponsoring LIRs"
to receive additional allocations even if SUB-ALLOCATED is not
90% assigned.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg at c4inet.net>
>Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55
>Para: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
>CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
>
>    Hi Gert,
>
>    On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>    >> In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP"
>    >> function.
>    >
>    >Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it
>    >is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there.  We've tried
>    >a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights"
>    >and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated...
>
>    I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It
>    doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes
>    the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User.
>    (Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR")
>
>    This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they
>    neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.
>
>    The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot
>    higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their
>    end users.
>
>    The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I
>    think that particular boat sailed a long time ago...
>
>    rgds,
>    Sascha Luck
>
>    >
>    >(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI
>    >label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block
>    >for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?)
>    >
>    >Gert Doering
>    >        -- APWG chair
>    >--
>    >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>    >
>    >SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
>    >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>    >D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>    >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>**********************************************
>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.
>
>
>
>
>