inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
Hi all, As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar. I'm considering submitting a policy proposal in each RIR (RIPE, AfriNIC, LACNIC, APNIC), for that, but I will like to get some inputs before, and "sense" the feeling about that of the participants. Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28. This is the example that Owen sent to the AfriNIC list: 1. Figure out the number of end sites you expect to serve in your largest aggregation point in 3-5 years. 2. Round that to a nibble boundary (with a 25% minimum free space) (1-12 end sites = 4 bits, 13-192 end sites = 8 bits. 193-3,072 end sites = 12 bits, 3,073-49,152 end sites = 16 bits, 49,153-786,432 = 20 bits, etc.)… Call this E. 3. Figure out the number of aggregation points you expect to have in 3-5 years. Round that up to a nibble boundary with a 25% minimum free space (same as in step 2). Call this A. 4. 48-(A+E) = prefix size. Example: An ISP has 42,000 customers in it’s largest end site. It has 128 end sites. E = 16, A = 8, 48-(16+8) = 48-(24) = 24, this ISP should get a /24. So, would you agree in doing something on this line? Thanks in advance for any inputs! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 2018 May 02 (Wed) at 07:25:12 -0500 (-0500), JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: :Hi all, : :As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. : :In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar. : :I'm considering submitting a policy proposal in each RIR (RIPE, AfriNIC, LACNIC, APNIC), for that, but I will like to get some inputs before, and "sense" the feeling about that of the participants. : :Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28. : Using this justification, would that also grow all IPv6 PI /48s to a /44, or only those that are not already at a nibble boundary? :This is the example that Owen sent to the AfriNIC list: : :1. Figure out the number of end sites you expect to serve in your largest aggregation point : in 3-5 years. :2. Round that to a nibble boundary (with a 25% minimum free space) (1-12 end sites = 4 bits, : 13-192 end sites = 8 bits. 193-3,072 end sites = 12 bits, 3,073-49,152 end sites = 16 bits, : 49,153-786,432 = 20 bits, etc.)… Call this E. :3. Figure out the number of aggregation points you expect to have in 3-5 years. Round that up : to a nibble boundary with a 25% minimum free space (same as in step 2). Call this A. :4. 48-(A+E) = prefix size. : : Example: An ISP has 42,000 customers in it’s largest end site. It has 128 end sites. : E = 16, A = 8, 48-(16+8) = 48-(24) = 24, this ISP should get a /24. : :So, would you agree in doing something on this line? : :Thanks in advance for any inputs! : :Regards, :Jordi : : : : : :********************************************** :IPv4 is over :Are you ready for the new Internet ? :http://www.consulintel.es :The IPv6 Company -- Broad-mindedness, n.: The result of flattening high-mindedness out.
Hi Peter, /48 is already in a nibble boundary, so no chance :-) Despite that, initially I'm considering only the policy for IPv6 PA (LIRs/ISPs). If the inputs provide a view that this should be the same for IPv6 PI, I've no issue in do that one as well, so in that case if you have previously justified, for example, a /47, you should automatically be able to get the /44. However, if we believe that both should be proposed (nibble boundary for IPv6 PA and nibble boundary for IPv6 PI) I think it will be better decoupled in separate policy proposals, to facilitate the discussion and possible consensus, and again no problem from my side to work on both. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> Fecha: miércoles, 2 de mayo de 2018, 7:45 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 On 2018 May 02 (Wed) at 07:25:12 -0500 (-0500), JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: :Hi all, : :As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. : :In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar. : :I'm considering submitting a policy proposal in each RIR (RIPE, AfriNIC, LACNIC, APNIC), for that, but I will like to get some inputs before, and "sense" the feeling about that of the participants. : :Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28. : Using this justification, would that also grow all IPv6 PI /48s to a /44, or only those that are not already at a nibble boundary? :This is the example that Owen sent to the AfriNIC list: : :1. Figure out the number of end sites you expect to serve in your largest aggregation point : in 3-5 years. :2. Round that to a nibble boundary (with a 25% minimum free space) (1-12 end sites = 4 bits, : 13-192 end sites = 8 bits. 193-3,072 end sites = 12 bits, 3,073-49,152 end sites = 16 bits, : 49,153-786,432 = 20 bits, etc.)… Call this E. :3. Figure out the number of aggregation points you expect to have in 3-5 years. Round that up : to a nibble boundary with a 25% minimum free space (same as in step 2). Call this A. :4. 48-(A+E) = prefix size. : : Example: An ISP has 42,000 customers in it’s largest end site. It has 128 end sites. : E = 16, A = 8, 48-(16+8) = 48-(24) = 24, this ISP should get a /24. : :So, would you agree in doing something on this line? : :Thanks in advance for any inputs! : :Regards, :Jordi : : : : : :********************************************** :IPv4 is over :Are you ready for the new Internet ? :http://www.consulintel.es :The IPv6 Company -- Broad-mindedness, n.: The result of flattening high-mindedness out. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:12AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
???As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary.
Speaking as a long-time IPv6 user, I see no real benefit in this. Yes, a /29 means I have to set up 8 reverse DNS zones, instead of one. Bummer. And my IP management tool might need to learn about non-magic bit numbers (but it will need to understand that anyway if I do reasonably-sized internal suballocations, like "a /34 for a region" and not "a /36 because the tool cannot do /34s"). "Just because ARIN does it" is also not a good reason to follow suit - like, "lots of people going for /36 allocations, because /32 is too big and, priced-by-size, too expensive"... (But this is strictly my *personal* opinion. If there is sufficient support in the WG, I'll shepherd a corresponding proposal, of course) Gert Doering -- long time IPv6 allocation holder -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Of course, in case it was not clear, I didn't want to mean "because ARIN did that, we should do the same as well". It was just a matter of providing context. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fecha: miércoles, 2 de mayo de 2018, 9:35 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 Hi, On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:12AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > ???As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. Speaking as a long-time IPv6 user, I see no real benefit in this. Yes, a /29 means I have to set up 8 reverse DNS zones, instead of one. Bummer. And my IP management tool might need to learn about non-magic bit numbers (but it will need to understand that anyway if I do reasonably-sized internal suballocations, like "a /34 for a region" and not "a /36 because the tool cannot do /34s"). "Just because ARIN does it" is also not a good reason to follow suit - like, "lots of people going for /36 allocations, because /32 is too big and, priced-by-size, too expensive"... (But this is strictly my *personal* opinion. If there is sufficient support in the WG, I'll shepherd a corresponding proposal, of course) Gert Doering -- long time IPv6 allocation holder -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> [2018-05-02 14:26]:
Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28.
Hi, I'm not sure I see the big benefit of upgrading to a /28 but on a purely technical standpoint, "upgrading" is not possible in most cases because RIPE NCC did not reserve a complete /28 for every LIR. So you would end up with two /29 or you'd have to renumber your /29 to a new /28. Both options don't sound appealing to me. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Hi Sebastian, As said, is just an idea, and I'm not yet nailing down all the details, but I don't think, in general, and ISP that has advanced his deployment, will renumber ... so of course I will not suggest that as mandatory, only an option in case some want to do (there are a few ISPs that got their /29 and didn't deployed IPv6 at all, so it make sense for them). On the other side, it will be nice, in order to understand how much is the impact of this, if the NCC can provide a summary of how many of the actual RIRs that have a non-nibble boundary allocation, will not be able to get it upgraded to the nibble-boundary one because the precedent space has been already allocated to someone else, etc. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian@karotte.org> Fecha: viernes, 4 de mayo de 2018, 6:52 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> [2018-05-02 14:26]: > Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the > other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our > policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. > This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to > "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28. Hi, I'm not sure I see the big benefit of upgrading to a /28 but on a purely technical standpoint, "upgrading" is not possible in most cases because RIPE NCC did not reserve a complete /28 for every LIR. So you would end up with two /29 or you'd have to renumber your /29 to a new /28. Both options don't sound appealing to me. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
participants (4)
-
Gert Doering -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Peter Hessler -
Sebastian Wiesinger