Martin Millnert wrote:
Marcin,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Marcin Kuczera <marcin@leon.pl> wrote:
hello,
Is it possible to discuss ability of getting second IPv6 PA allocation as a LIR without filling first one ?
See below.
The reason for such a need is a change of IPv6 PI rules, it is no longer possible to use IPv6 PI as ISP (/128 for subscibers). So, solution is that LIR segment /32 into smaller units an assigning them to their SponsorLIR agreement customers.
However, first /32 IPv6 allocation is in our case advertized as whole by our AS13000. Once some internal policy for suballocations is used, this prefix can not be divided into smaller prefixes.
I doubt this is correct. You mentioned that you had not filled the /32. In other words, there should be /48s left over unallocated internally.
These /48s can be (sub-)allocated to customers (please forgive my flawed internet-numbers-delegation-vocabulary), who are free to announce them over BGP sessions.
Indeed, however there is one "little" issue. /32 is already advertised @AS13000 as whole. So there are 2 possibilities: - add paralel route objects, but then MNT-LOWER must be added and all related inter-ISP communiaction problems. - not adverising /32 @ AS13000, adverising only prefixes in use. Both cases I would like to avoid. So, I would prefer to have /32 for own purposes, eventually customers who buy Internet from us, and other, who are just SponsorLIR customers.
Presumably, the more ISPs that sign up for this Internet tax (the LIR membership fees), the lower it will become (#LIRs is most definitely sub-linearly proportional to the RIPE NCC:s operational costs). It is fairly obvious to me that this attempt to (at least partially) solve a *perceived* network model problem with taxes is not long-term stable in itself.*
You can't use this argument for people who earn around 500-1000 euro per month with their business... Post comunistic block is much different than old EU, and most people from old EU do not realize that... Marcin