---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza@gmail.com> Date: May 4, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round To: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> Hello, On 5/2/08, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do
something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.)
For ISPs i'm assuming it would be easier to use static allocations, instead of managing pools. Adding records to public databases is something separate...
Please rememeber, that I also suggested a technical solution: calculate the IPv6 addresses (subnet) from the previously allocated IPv4 address of the DSL user! That means: if we are able to allocate IPv4 addresses in "pseudo dynamic" way (wich is rather static), then we will be able to allocate IPv6 networks roughly at the same way.
4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the
"pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do it? If an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than a RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in the database!
You're trying to draw a line to distinguish residential users from enterprises, is that it?
No. I try to draw a line between "light" service and "serious" one (Or: between "dummies" and "experts".)
5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using
it then we will loose it soon.
We should always be able to link a single IPv6 address to an LIR/ISP...
It won't help, unfortunately. How many people live in Holland? How many SIM card (mobile phone contract) exist? Much more, than people...
6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine
for the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is).
8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible
different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) users, then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks.
Different allocation criteria also mean: sparser usage at the beginning. If we allocate an IPv6 subnet to each and every DSL costumer, very few of them will realy use it at the beginning. However, fast IPv6 transition is not possible without this "generosity". The suggested size of the "anonym" pool is depend on the number of costumers: a /36 for very larg ISPs (more than 15 million costumers), a /40 for medium ISPs, a /44 for smaller ISP-s (less than 1 million costumers) Yes, there are ISP-s serving more than 15-16 millions costumers! This is one of the reasons why I suggested the creation of a new type of reusable addresses, the AS-local IPv4 address pool!
Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept:
Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, AS-local address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of autonomous Systems might share
even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.)
I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a collaborative effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow creation of a common address pool!
It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL users if we have a
big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool.
Please read also my proposals:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes...
and my presentation: (
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes-...
Best regards,
Geza