Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:00:05 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
If you say they are lying, then complain to RIPE NCC that they are doing their jobs wrongly. Apparently everybody who has gotten an allocation up to now have been able to reason that they need the allocation under the current policies. If you are not able to do so, though luck, you most likely don't need it in the first place then.
Sure they lie. I went on a BGP course a couple of years ago, and the instructor said that in his experience most people did because that's the only way to get what you need from RIPE. Current policies certainly don't fit us, for example. Looking in ripe-267, I see that in 5.1.1 there are four criteria for getting v6 space: 1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR. 2) not be an End Site - OK we're not. 3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs. 4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already. We manage one network (GEANT) for which we have a /32. There is another network (EUMEDCONNECT) which we manage at present, but in two years we are expecting that the connected NRENs will set up their own managing entity, and the infrastructure (including address space) will be handed over to them. I managed to get PI v4 space last year for this but it seems there is no such thing as PI v6 space so unless I fib and say that we have connected 50k end users to GEANT, I don't see how I can obtain separate, routeable v6 space for EUMEDCONNECT. We're an LIR, and an ISP, but we don't fit into the nice hierarchical tree that everyone assumes exists. For v4 we have an essentially similar problem. When GEANT's predecessor network, TEN-155, was being replaced we had to argue with RIPE about getting another /21 for GEANT. Well, now we have handed back the old /21 that we used for TEN-155. But the process should be easier than that. In short, I would advocate relaxing the rules about PI space. -- Tim
On 1-mrt-05, at 18:31, Tim Streater wrote:
3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs.
4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already.
So what do you need IPv6 address space for apart from your own stuff? Seems to me that from an address allocation point of view, you are and endsite.
In short, I would advocate relaxing the rules about PI space.
The trouble is that in IPv4 there is at least _some_ backpressure on PI because people need to qualify for a /24. In IPv6, we don't count addresses anymore, so all else being equal, MORE people would be able to get PI space. If that were to happen, we'd be in a lot of trouble. Iljitsch
Tim Streater wrote:
We're an LIR, and an ISP, but we don't fit into the nice hierarchical tree that everyone assumes exists. For v4 we have an essentially similar problem.
This is actually quite interesting. From the historical point of view my understanding is that the IPv6 designers in the IETF tried to enforce a very strict hierarcy in IPv6. The reasons for this was of course to limit the global routing table. This is similar to my understanding of the IPv4 policies in the ARIN region where you need to document a need for addresses. We tried that for a while in the RIPE region too - but removed this criteria again. In IPv6 the requirement for having plans to have 200 customers exists as a global compromize to make the policy acceptable in alll regions - its was a regiaonaly approved policy - but globaly coordinated. Now we are facing a review of this policy - some changes has already been made in some regions - and the question is 1) Should we change this criteria - if so - what should the new criteria be - if any at all ? (why should v4 and v6 policy differ) 2) What would the (global) consequences be of such a change ? (the policy will not be globaly coordinated any more, what about routing table implications ?) -hph
Hi, On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:24:31AM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
In IPv6 the requirement for having plans to have 200 customers exists as a global compromize to make the policy acceptable in alll regions - its was a regiaonaly approved policy - but globaly coordinated.
Now we are facing a review of this policy - some changes has already been made in some regions - and the question is
1) Should we change this criteria - if so - what should the new criteria be - if any at all ? (why should v4 and v6 policy differ)
From the discussions in the APWG mailing list, I understand that most participants seem to be in favour of abandoning the 200-customer rule.
"If you're a LIR, pay your fees, assign to 3rd parties" - that's considered sufficient to receive an allocation. We just never came around to formalize the policy change. (Time to excercise the new policy process...)
2) What would the (global) consequences be of such a change ? (the policy will not be globaly coordinated any more, what about routing table implications ?)
The "global policy" is already out of sync, as LACNIC has already dropped the 200-customer rule... I haven't checked the current state at ARIN and APNIC, though. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:36:38AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
The "global policy" is already out of sync, as LACNIC has already dropped the 200-customer rule... I haven't checked the current state at ARIN and APNIC, though.
Policy of the day bei ARIN: -----cut here----- a) be an LIR; b) not be an end site; c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and d) be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within five years. -----cut here----- Quelle: http://www.arin.net/policy/index.html#six511 Nils -- Bad people are punished by societies law Good people are punished by Murphies law [From "Dead Like Me"]
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 17:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:00:05 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
If you say they are lying, then complain to RIPE NCC that they are doing their jobs wrongly. Apparently everybody who has gotten an allocation up to now have been able to reason that they need the allocation under the current policies. If you are not able to do so, though luck, you most likely don't need it in the first place then.
Sure they lie. I went on a BGP course a couple of years ago, and the instructor said that in his experience most people did because that's the only way to get what you need from RIPE. Current policies certainly don't fit us, for example. Looking in ripe-267, I see that in 5.1.1 there are four criteria for getting v6 space:
1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR.
2) not be an End Site - OK we're not.
3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs.
4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already.
According to the above, either 4 is false or 2 is false and you are simply an endsite. Might sound harsh, but that is it... at the moment... Greets, Jeroen
Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 17:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR.
2) not be an End Site - OK we're not.
3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs.
4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already.
According to the above, either 4 is false or 2 is false and you are simply an endsite. Might sound harsh, but that is it... at the moment...
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own - I am hardly an end site ? how do I get adresses under the current policy ? If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ? This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful. -hph
hpholen@tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) wrote:
- I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own - I am hardly an end site ?
how do I get adresses under the current policy ?
Maybe you qualify as an exchange point... Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 10:17, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own - I am hardly an end site ?
how do I get adresses under the current policy ? If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ?
This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful.
IMHO, this is what is wrong with the current policy. It says you should 'PLAN' to assign 200 /48s it doesnot say you 'WILL' assign. In order to obey the letter of the policy you could say that you 'PLAN' to assign each of your customers a /48 - whether they use it is entirely upto them (as they've got their own allocation they would probably never use the /48 from you). This would get you an allocation and be obeying the letter of the policy. You're not strictly lying, but it is a completely pointless use of address space. Jon
At 10:30 02/03/2005, Jon Lawrence wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 10:17, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own - I am hardly an end site ?
how do I get adresses under the current policy ? If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ?
This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful.
IMHO, this is what is wrong with the current policy. It says you should 'PLAN' to assign 200 /48s it doesnot say you 'WILL' assign. In order to obey the letter of the policy you could say that you 'PLAN' to assign each of your customers a /48 - whether they use it is entirely upto them (as they've got their own allocation they would probably never use the /48 from you). This would get you an allocation and be obeying the letter of the policy. You're not strictly lying, but it is a completely pointless use of address space.
It's also a dopey piece of administrative b/s which has no value. Much better that the policy be designed to cover cases like this and encourage people to be honest. That way the database models reality a bit better. -- Tim
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 11:17 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 17:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR.
2) not be an End Site - OK we're not.
3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs.
4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already.
According to the above, either 4 is false or 2 is false and you are simply an endsite. Might sound harsh, but that is it... at the moment...
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own
Do these customers are LIR's because they have 200 customers themselves or because being LIR allows them to get some address space more easily? When they are endsites, that is having no other transits, they should be getting space from you and not themselves.
- I am hardly an end site ? how do I get adresses under the current policy ?
This is I assume indeed the scheme that Tim from Dante shows. And indeed this does not work under the current policy and as such that needs to be fixed.... The question boils down to: - do you require a entry in the routing table or: - do you need address space Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never use it. A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the routing table?
If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ?
Propose a new/addition/change to the policy that specifies this specific case, bring it forward and let people vote. If for one see why, especially in business case, you want your own address space. For that matter a micro-policy would sort of be good, but the thing is..... how much routing entries will we end up with, again as much as with IPv4?
This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful.
Ack. Greets, Jeroen
On Wed, 2 March 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: [..]
The question boils down to: - do you require a entry in the routing table or: - do you need address space
Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never use it. A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the routing table?
Cool. Then we as a transit provider have a problem. Well, we have a handful of customers with /48 and some /64, but that are not exactly that many... 80% of our v6 customers run BGP with their /48 or /32... Alexander
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 12:05 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote:
On Wed, 2 March 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: [..]
The question boils down to: - do you require a entry in the routing table or: - do you need address space
Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never use it. A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the routing table?
Cool. Then we as a transit provider have a problem. Well, we have a handful of customers with /48 and some /64, but that are not exactly that many... 80% of our v6 customers run BGP with their /48 or /32...
That is indeed a problem for such a setup. But this is a problem with the policy and the thought behind the policy than with your setup :) As such, these cases should be covered in the policy too. But Tiscali already has a very well working IPv6 connectivity and I assume that you also have the _plan_ of providing connectivity for more than 200 customers at some point in the very distant future, so actually it is not a big issue. But it is for some indeed :( Greets, Jeroen
At 10:32 02/03/2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 11:17 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 17:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR.
2) not be an End Site - OK we're not.
3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs.
4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already.
According to the above, either 4 is false or 2 is false and you are simply an endsite. Might sound harsh, but that is it... at the moment...
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own
Do these customers are LIR's because they have 200 customers themselves or because being LIR allows them to get some address space more easily? When they are endsites, that is having no other transits, they should be getting space from you and not themselves.
In our case the customers are the NRENs of Europe so they certainly have >200 customers each.
- I am hardly an end site ? how do I get adresses under the current policy ?
This is I assume indeed the scheme that Tim from Dante shows. And indeed this does not work under the current policy and as such that needs to be fixed....
The question boils down to: - do you require a entry in the routing table or: - do you need address space
Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never use it. A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the routing table?
If in fact all we do is assign space to the transit infrastructure, a smaller space could be sufficient. But (a) we need it to be routeable, else how can we manage/monitor it from entities outside the network (which we do), and (b) how do we get the space? Not from one of our customers, and we have no upstream. I am told that no prefix longer than /35 is routeable.
If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ?
Propose a new/addition/change to the policy that specifies this specific case, bring it forward and let people vote. If for one see why, especially in business case, you want your own address space. For that matter a micro-policy would sort of be good, but the thing is..... how much routing entries will we end up with, again as much as with IPv4?
This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful.
We have PoPs from Vienna to Lisbon on a network with its own AS number. We do transit for the customers only. Everything else they can do for themselves and the customers set us up to do just what we do. With the existing policies I am not able to get v6 space for such a network. And why should not *any* group of entities decide to assemble a similar network, if they feel like it. If the v6 designers wanted to keep the routing table small, perhaps they should have gone for geographical prefixes like the phone system. -- Tim
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 10:17, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own - I am hardly an end site ?
how do I get adresses under the current policy ? If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ?
IMHO, this is what is wrong with the current policy. It says you should 'PLAN' to assign 200 /48s it doesnot say you 'WILL' assign. In order to obey the letter of the policy you could say that you 'PLAN' to assign each of your customers a /48 - whether they use it is entirely upto them (as they've got their own allocation they would probably never use the /48 from you). This would get you an allocation and be obeying the letter of the policy. You're not strictly lying, but it is a completely pointless use of address space. Jon
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:17:58AM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up"
Define to have several and chose one of them to give you a /48
- I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own - I am hardly an end site ?
According to the policy you are.
how do I get adresses under the current policy ?
PA from one of your customers^WProviders.
If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ?
Bring back PI.
This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful.
This limits other endsites as well. You are as much an endsite as many other big companies. Big companies connecting more stuff then most of the ISPs out there. They will not accept a renumbering when they change their provider. Just as you do not want to renumber when your customer that gave you the PA moves somewhere else. They want multihoming that works and does not rely on the aggregate still being visible from the provider they got the PA space from. Just like you do. You are not so special ;-) Nils -- 12:23 < remex> jjFux: Warum benutzt Du Computer nicht einfach, wie andere Menschen auch? 12:24 <@jjFux> remex: ... als Wurfgeschoß? Soweit habe ich meine Emotionen noch unter Kontrolle
participants (10)
-
Alexander Koch -
Elmar K. Bins -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jeroen Massar -
Jon Lawrence -
Jon Lawrence -
Nils Ketelsen -
Tim Streater