Hi,

Many thank for your comments in the first round.

I appreciated that most of you read my text and commented only after reading as a whole.

Those who listened me at RIPE 55 had been in better position.

Let me clarify some details:

I fully agree that the final document should not use the term "dummy" and "expert". However, these words emphasize the difference between different class of users.

1, Actually an IP address of a DSL user is not in the RIPE database, expect in the very exceptional case when the DSL user have a fix IPv4 address, may be even a subnet.

2, There are many ways to allocate IPv6 network for DSL users; however, it is hopeless to create database entries for them. The reasons are not only technical, but political. With IPv4 most of the DSL users had pseudo-anonym IPv4 addresses, their contact details had been known only by their ISP (and by the police, eventually), and the ISP is not allowed at all to publish the user data in any open database.

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.)

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!

5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using it then we will loose it soon.

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).

7, I still propose a common policy: how to distinguish between an "anonym" DSL user and a "registered" one. My proposal is: an "anonym" DSL user should receive a minimum IPv6 allocation. In this case the "minimum" is one subnet (/64) or, if there are automatically usable subnets for special purpose then the minimum size might include those subnets. If a DSL user need more then should fill an address request, and registered.

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.

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.pdf

and my presentation: (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes-half-proposal.pdf

Many thanks for your attention,

            Geza