Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence,
I am against this. 16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише: > 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. > > > > > >
