Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
In reality RIPE will be giving up a finite resource for implementing one particular type of a transition protocol, i.e. 6rd. Can't the response be go back to your vendor and ask them to implement a different transition protocol that doesn't waste address space ? After all, there are many such protocols out there. -Ahmed Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:04:20 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA67B94.2090305@go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 10/25/11 9:44 AM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy.
As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users.
Dear Ahmed, We are aware of many similar technologies that would fulfill the same or similar goal, but what we are doing here is just listen to complains and requests from the field and try to make deployment of IPv6 (native or as service in this case) as easy as possible with this change of the policy proposal. Reality usually wins :) Cheers, Jan -------------------------------------------------- From: "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed@tamkien.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:44 AM To: "RIPE Address Policy" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy.
As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users.
-Ahmed
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA5BC6F.90005@go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/24/11 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a /20.
it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :)
can only expand to /29 without renumbering :S
cheers, Jan
Dear Ahmed, I would have completely agreed with you five years ago. Problem is, we've managed to run out of time and 6rd is one of the few transition protocols that has a chance of being implemented in many eyeball networks in the next 12-18 months. I don't like 6RD much either (actually I also don't like how IPv6 reserves 64 bits for the host part), but this is address policy and not the protocol police. Address space that is used is not wasted, and if LIRs use it below the thresholds set in IPv6 allocation policy (which, surprise surprise, 6rd is likely to do) at least those LIRs won't be entitled to any followup address space until they've cleaned up. Best regards, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, Europe remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 28-10-11 11:01, "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed@tamkien.com> wrote:
In reality RIPE will be giving up a finite resource for implementing one particular type of a transition protocol, i.e. 6rd.
Can't the response be go back to your vendor and ask them to implement a different transition protocol that doesn't waste address space ? After all, there are many such protocols out there.
-Ahmed
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:04:20 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA67B94.2090305@go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/25/11 9:44 AM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy.
As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users.
Dear Ahmed,
We are aware of many similar technologies that would fulfill the same or similar goal, but what we are doing here is just listen to complains and requests from the field and try to make deployment of IPv6 (native or as service in this case) as easy as possible with this change of the policy proposal.
Reality usually wins :)
Cheers, Jan
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed@tamkien.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:44 AM To: "RIPE Address Policy" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy.
As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users.
-Ahmed
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA5BC6F.90005@go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/24/11 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a /20.
it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :)
can only expand to /29 without renumbering :S
cheers, Jan
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On 10/28/11 11:14 AM, Remco Van Mook wrote:
Dear Ahmed,
I would have completely agreed with you five years ago. Problem is, we've managed to run out of time and 6rd is one of the few transition protocols that has a chance of being implemented in many eyeball networks in the next 12-18 months. I don't like 6RD much either (actually I also don't like how IPv6 reserves 64 bits for the host part), but this is address policy and not the protocol police.
Address space that is used is not wasted, and if LIRs use it below the thresholds set in IPv6 allocation policy (which, surprise surprise, 6rd is likely to do) at least those LIRs won't be entitled to any followup address space until they've cleaned up.
+1 Thnx :) Cheers, Jan
On 10/28/11 11:01 AM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
In reality RIPE will be giving up a finite resource for implementing one particular type of a transition protocol, i.e. 6rd.
Hi, Arguably "infinite" resource. More towards "infinite" than to "finite" resource. No. RIPE-NCC would be giving out resources, that people need to deploy IPv6, native or as a service.
Can't the response be go back to your vendor and ask them to implement a different transition protocol that doesn't waste address space ? After all, there are many such protocols out there.
It surely can. Good luck with that :) 6RD is here, even chipset vendors are building HW acceleration support for it. Again, to be clear, I'm not perfectly ok with 6RD, as it is resources wastefull mechanism and "wrong way of doing right thing" and we'll probably never use it in our country, but still, that's my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the fact, that it's being widely deployed or at least many of opers would deploy it today if they had the v6 resources to do that. But, hitting the HD ration bump for additional allocation seems to be the show-stopper for them. Cheers, Jan
Ahmed,
In reality RIPE will be giving up a finite resource for implementing one particular type of a transition protocol, i.e. 6rd.
finite => there are 67 million /29s. and there is what < 15000 ISPs in the world? given that we only use 1/8 of the IPv6 address space for this model of addressing. do we get it wrong, we have 7 more tries. the biggest hurdle we have now is to get IPv6 deployed; if we don't succeed in that it doesn't much matter that we have conserved address space that no-one uses... ;-) cheers, Ole
Can't the response be go back to your vendor and ask them to implement a different transition protocol that doesn't waste address space ? After all, there are many such protocols out there.
-Ahmed
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:04:20 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA67B94.2090305@go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/25/11 9:44 AM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy.
As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users.
Dear Ahmed,
We are aware of many similar technologies that would fulfill the same or similar goal, but what we are doing here is just listen to complains and requests from the field and try to make deployment of IPv6 (native or as service in this case) as easy as possible with this change of the policy proposal.
Reality usually wins :)
Cheers, Jan
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed@tamkien.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:44 AM To: "RIPE Address Policy" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy.
As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users.
-Ahmed
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA5BC6F.90005@go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/24/11 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a /20.
it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :)
can only expand to /29 without renumbering :S
cheers, Jan
On 28/10/2011 10:30, Ole Troan wrote:
finite => there are 67 million /29s. and there is what < 15000 ISPs in the world?
Last I looked which was many months ago, ~37000 ASNs with a time-consistent average of 1.4 ipv6 prefixes each. Nick
Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:53:53AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 28/10/2011 10:30, Ole Troan wrote:
finite => there are 67 million /29s. and there is what < 15000 ISPs in the world?
Last I looked which was many months ago, ~37000 ASNs with a time-consistent average of 1.4 ipv6 prefixes each.
Thanks for poking me to add these to http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/ We're not at 1.57 prefixes per AS (on average), with about 6600 active IPv6 ASes. (And no, we don't have 37000 ASNs with 1.4 ipv6 prefixes each yet - if we had, I would start celebrating, and then go on turning off IPv4) Gert Doering -- IPv6 number guy -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 28/10/2011 13:28, Gert Doering wrote:
(And no, we don't have 37000 ASNs with 1.4 ipv6 prefixes each yet - if we had, I would start celebrating, and then go on turning off IPv4)
eh, sorry. I worded what I said rather badly. I meant that at the time I looked, there were 37,000 ASNs active on the internet. Separate to that, there had been a ratio of 1.4 ipv6 prefixes originated by each ASN that originated an ipv6 prefix, and that this ratio had been relatively consistent over the previous couple of years. Hope this clarifies. Definitely not 37000*1.4 = 51000 ipv6 prefixes. Nick
(And no, we don't have 37000 ASNs with 1.4 ipv6 prefixes each yet - if we had, I would start celebrating, and then go on turning off IPv4)
eh, sorry. I worded what I said rather badly. I meant that at the time I looked, there were 37,000 ASNs active on the internet. Separate to that, there had been a ratio of 1.4 ipv6 prefixes originated by each ASN that originated an ipv6 prefix, and that this ratio had been relatively consistent over the previous couple of years. Hope this clarifies.
Definitely not 37000*1.4 = 51000 ipv6 prefixes.
my point was to give an estimate of the number of possible 6rd users, compared to the number of /29s available. it is obviously far less than the total number of ASNs in use. cheers, Ole
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> wrote: <snip>
finite => there are 67 million /29s. and there is what < 15000 ISPs in the world? given that we only use 1/8 of the IPv6 address space for this model of addressing. do we get it wrong, we have 7 more tries. the biggest hurdle we have now is to get IPv6 deployed; if we don't succeed in that it doesn't much matter that we have conserved address space that no-one uses... ;-)
+1 :-) -- Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
participants (7)
-
Ahmed Abu-Abed -
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Nick Hilliard -
Ole Troan -
Remco Van Mook -
Roger Jørgensen