[Apwg-ipv6-papi] 2013-06 - where to?

Sat Nov 23 09:28:15 CET 2013

Hi Elvis

I also agree. I think, we should define our main goal first. Afterwards, we should subdivide this goal into smaller steps and start with a step-by-step approach.

How do we want to proceed?

Cheers, Olaf

-----Original Message-----
From: apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Stolpe
Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2013 13:39
To: Elvis Velea
Cc: apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] 2013-06 - where to?

Hi Elvis

I agree in genral. I'm not sure how we could or should proceed now though. 
But somehow, take a step back and see if we can make things less complicated. And maybe not try to do everything at the same time. A step-by-step approach might be more sensible.

Cheers,

Daniel

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Elvis Velea wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've followed the discussion on 2013-06 on the mailing list and 
> although there was not much discussed (I hoped to see more people 
> involved in the
> conversation) I decided, this time, to just watch and see what others say.
>
> I have the feeling that the answer is 'yes, we need this but the way 
> you are trying to achieve it is too complex'.
>
> I am not sure if we should already kill the proposal, most of the 
> participants have said 'this is a great idea'.
>
>
> Where do we go now? Olaf, Daniel, are you still interested in 
> continuing the work on this proposal and prepare something which is 
> not that complex? I, for sure, will continue working on this one way or an other.
>
> Gert, Sander - what do you guys think?
> - Should we just abandon this proposal and try to make a few smaller 
> changes (in different policy proposals) that would lead to the same result?
> - Should we go back to the drawing board and try to make less changes 
> that may be accepted by the community?
>
>
> Hoping that you do not think we should abandon the proposal, I'm 
> coming with the following scenario for the version 2:
>
> I'm thinking that if we abandon the idea of removing the differences 
> between assignments and allocations, this change will no longer be 
> that complex. (we would still remove most of the differences between 
> PI/PA)
>
> We would have:
> - allocations made by the RIPE NCC to:
>   - LIR (just as it is today)
>   - Sponsored IR (will be the change of this policy)
>
> - assignments to the end-user made by:
>  - RIPE NCC (just as it is today - PI)
>  - LIR (just as it is today - PA)
>  - Sponsored IR (will be the change of this policy)
>
> - sub-allocations made by:
>  - LIR (just as it is today)
>  - Sponsored IR (not sure if we should allow this)
>    - in my opinion, this was the biggest change to digest, allowing 
> SIRs to further sub-allocate
>
> Discussion about the charging scheme would then be:
>
> - LIRs - pay as they pay today
> - Users of Assignments made by the RIPE NCC - pay as they pay today
> - Sponsored IR that receive an allocation - pay a fee in between the 
> two above
>
>
> On the other hand we could abandon 2013-06 and propose a change in the 
> PI policy, allowing the RIPE NCC to make 'PI allocations'. And once 
> this change would be accepted, we could try to unify the two policies.
>
> cheers,
> elvis

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm

_______________________________________________
Apwg-ipv6-papi mailing list
Apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/apwg-ipv6-papi