Hi Jordi, As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA can be further allocated or assigned.
I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer that. I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE DB, of course. By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most of the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only future, what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be a member in such future? In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point of view. Sincerely, Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi Martin, > > I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that. > > I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large > non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question. > > Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of > organizations. > > I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both > into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to > have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small > different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much > simpler). > > Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean > specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy? > > The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per > end-site, the other with /32. Anything else? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de > Martin Huněk <[email protected]> > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01 > Para: <[email protected]>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <[email protected]> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > > Hi Jordi, > > I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal. > > Reasons: > - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for > canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space > - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP > organization could be legitimate user of PI space > - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that > concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused > > Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the > ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of > IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, > it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC > because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI > in the LIR portal). > > Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) > specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step > by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to > ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4. > > There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use > current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so > it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be > a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same > way. > > Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. > Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone > asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and > ask LIR why they want to ask for PI. > > Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for > LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR > portal. > > IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users > became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a > local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the > IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by > pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one. > > Best regards > Martin > > Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via > address-policy-wg napsal(a): > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
