Am 20.05.2018 um 11:02 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just
> lazy people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same
> situation.
>
> Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts,
> there are two choices:
> 1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI
> holders to the end-user contract
Luckily, it wouldn't be the "same way"; this time, PIv6 address holders are
already bound by the »RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which
may be amended from time to time«. For IPv4 assignments that predated the PI/PA
distinction, e. g. from the early years like 1992/1993, nothing like that was
agreed on (check ripe-072, ripe-104), so NCC's blackmailing ("sign this
contract or we'll redistribute your used v4 space") was, trying to be polite
here, a bit on the weird side.
> 2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI
> and PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign
> end user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract).
So, what would be the advantage? Wouldn't this simply create the incentive to
have dirt-cheap ISPs running on End User address, which to prevent seems to be
the motivation to start this discussion initially?
Regards,
-kai
