Hi Jan, We introduced IPv6 PI (I was the author of that policy proposal), because (in this order): 1) There was a claim for it considering that this will help the deployment of IPv6 (your claim for multihoming) 2) It existed in IPv4, so people wanted the same ... 3) It was a way to avoid creating an IPv6 NAT (somehow your mention about internal addresses) 4) ... there were many other minor considerations at that time
However, I always stated clearly when I was presenting my own proposal that I was "not" personally in favor of that, and I was only doing that because the community considered that need. But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't worked to resolve that problem. Now, in your text, you mention "but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because they would only use it internally for their own business" ... right, and we broke it with the 2016-4 ... My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single* category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an artificial name. As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know that, it is something that the NCC should calculate). So, lets thing for a moment that 50 Euros for an ASN, 50 for an IPv4 /22 and 50 for an IPv6 /48 (which in total is 150 Euros), it is really covering the yearly cost of the NCC to maintain those services. Maybe it is fair to just change that for 150 Euros (so no change) for LIRs which have a single end-site, but now they don't have restrictions and we avoid discussions related to if a sub-assignment is correct or not, if it is only a single address or several, and so on. If instead of that, the NCC tell us that the real cost for maintaining those services is 200 Euros, it will be fair that the LIRs aren't subsidizing the end-users, so there is an LIR category for "end-users" that becomes 200 Euros (instead of 150), and then of course, the LIRs cost will drop a bit from 1.400 Euros to maybe around 1.000 euros or whatever is the calculation that the NCC shows is the correct one (this will depend on how many LIRs we have today vs. end-users and how much is the expected increase in each category in the coming years, etc.). Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means simplicity for both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a (marginal) administrative cost decrease, but also simplification for the policies, less interpretation errors, less people trying to bend the policies to the limit, etc., etc. It is up to the NCC to provide possible fee schemes to accommodate several possibilities, in order the ensure a long-term sustainability of the system and also a *fair* distribution of the real costs. For example, it may be interesting also to consider if the "setup" fee should be really 2.000 euros, or something different (even less than half), if we have a double number of LIRs (when putting together a single contract for all), of if this one-time setup fee must be much lower to accommodate the "real" one-time-setup cost, and then pay just 10 extra (just an example) euros per year in the yearly fee, which is probably more interesting in terms of "long-term" NCC sustainability. Last comment. I can't believe that and end-user, even a small company, is willing to pay to have a BGP router and capable staff (or external services to manage that), and has *an* issue to cover a few extra euros per year in case the (to be defined) "LIR fee for end-users" is 200 or even 500 Euros (again just examples) instead of 150 Euros. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe <[email protected]> Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 12:30 Para: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [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* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> *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. ********************************************** 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.
