Marco, On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 02:09:59PM +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008, at 12:23 PM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com > wrote:
The need for such extranet addresses is a good reason for RIPE to allow PI allocations/assignments of IPv6 addresses but 2008-01 is the wrong way to go about it.
Here is my wish list for IPv6 PI:
- No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6. - special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders - contract signed between RIPE and PI holders that covers fee payments, and revocation/return of address blocks - special known superblock from which all PI allocations are made so that people can manage their filters - /48 minimum PI allocation but larger aggregate is also possible - contact every IPv4 PI holder by email and inform them of the new rules for IPv6 PI allocations
In my opinion that should be followed by another policy change which requires RIPE membership, annual fee payment and a signed contract for any future ASN assignments or IPv4 PI address blocks.
Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from becoming a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ?
The difference is that right now there is a number of assignments that are "orphaned". There was a relationship: RIPE NCC -> LIR -> end user But either the relationship between the RIPE NCC and the LIR ended, or the relationship between the LIR and the end user ended. In either case, now there is no way to manage the use of the number resource. By simplifying the relationship: RIPE NCC -> end user We know the status of the space at all times.
Next to that I see a huge increase in administrative load for the NCC which could result in bigger financial risks which in turn ends up at the LIR's.
Depends on how it is done. There are millions of domain names, and these only cost 10 euros a year. :) -- Shane