Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi,
[...] >> What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem >> to be it. > For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing > work whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably > the most objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), > neither I plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to > me". I only had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I > started playing with IPv6. > Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I > can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When > anybody submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start > with this kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not > really smart. Now it's getting personal, which I really don't approve. After read throught the whole thread it seems that no one else asking the same or similar questions is getting the same treatment, so I have to ask myself why I do. > So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, > different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing? I don't want to repeat myself or others. > Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM > could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if > we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the > overall discussion. Even *IF* the fee issue wouldn't be touched we would have the issue that some entities - like the RIPE NCC - cannot ever be a RIPE member, hence the use of PI space at the meetings. This will apply to others. To sum this up: I'm totally against this change as it *will* create a whole bunch of new problems, obviously isn't anywhere near a possible (even rought) consensus and I don't see a positive cost / gain ratio. Best Max
