On 1 maj 2006, at 17.43, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Most (if not all) larger hosting providers I know are LIRs, so this question really doesn't apply. Then we will arrive at "LIRs are global pain to everybody else", and nothing has changed.
Which is touching the core of the problem:
"can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"?
LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do* allocate for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee involved shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the holder and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block *does* have some costs attached".
So in the end, we might want to abandon the "IPv6 PI" approaches, and radically change (loosen) the "IPv6 PA" policy.
But *I* am not the one to decide that - I follow the discussions, and try to extract some sort of workable (for the next few years) compromise between the extreme positions, which will then re-enter the discussion.
I actually agree with Gert. If we for a moment ignores who has the right to a slot in the routing table, I think the entire notion of PI should be abandoned as we have it today. I want holders of address space to have a recurring contact with the RIRs to make sure contact data is accurate and the holder still exists. I further think that all address-space holders should be subject to the same rules. Now, changing the rules for what is already out there does not seem doable, but at least we should change for the future. If PA space policy is broken, let's fix that. As for who have a right to a slot in my routing table, I think a minimum requirement is that they can be bothered to fulfil the duties as an LIR. If they can't be bothered with that, I can't be bothered to carry their route. So, let's move to a discussion on who should be able to get PA space.... I think being an LIR is a minimum requirement, that includes paying the associated fees. The 200 rule is questionable to me, it's arbitrary and more or less impossible to enforce. The demand that the space actually be used on the public routable Internet seems good if we could define this clearly. Leo told me that the NCC receives approx ~1400 requests a year for IPv4 PI space. I wonder how much of that is going to ISPs becuase it's "cheaper" than PA space...which is a claim that is hard to quantify. Well, this might be enough to start a discussion... - kurtis -