On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Fearghas McKay wrote:
Hi
Hello,
At 10:46 +0300 9/7/03, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Hello,
TREX is now in a position to start requesting an autonomous system number and IPv4 and IPv6 address space. I originally thought we'd just ask one of the connecting ISPs to forward the requests to RIPE under their LIR, and this is probably what we will end up doing.
But it's not a very convenient way of doing it. I would like to compare the situation to that of the pure IPv6 transit providers who have expressed concerns on other mailing lists: they wouldn't like to be dependent in any way on one of their customers either.
PI space as opposed to PA would help here.
Regarding IPv6: IXPs already have /48s "set aside". I understand that transit providers (with few clients) dont have their problem solved at this time. My view is that transit providers customers make the policies at the meetings because they are the majority, but some good sense is yet to be seen towards the transit providers' "problem" (some already hacked the situation, some others didnt).
Their situation differs slightly from ours though. They are willing to become LIRs, or they are already LIRs, whereas the number of annual change requests to an IXP's database objects is so small that it won't make sense for a new IXP to become a LIR itself. (Especially given the recent volatility of the costs associated ...)
This sounds like an item for the NCC services group to develop a new low cost membership for low change LIRs. The Action Plan for next year is being formulated just now so it would be a good time to suggest it.
So, what would be an ideal solution? One solution that occurred to me was that there could be an umbrella-LIR for all the IXPs in Europe. Perhaps it could be operated by RIPE NCC?
I think PI space would be a better solution rather than an LIR run by the NCC.
I also dont think a LIR run by the NCC makes much sense, although i think its feasible. Here, we run an IXP, a ccTLD (with a registrar scheme), and also an academic network. One of *our* people runs the registrar for the academic network.
Or possibly Euro-IX could operate a LIR for use by its members?
That might attract the attention of the EU, as it gives an appearance of "join the association or you will not get address space" which is seen as anti-competitive.
This would be only a way. Other associations are free to operate a LIR, right? The other solution i see for the problem presented is asking (paying?) an ISP from another country to submit the request. Anybody knows this form of business? LIR-only-customer? :-)
What sort of thoughts do others have on this issue? Or is it a non-issue? ;-)
I think it is more of an issue now as the costs go up to become an LIR.
f
Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 [ See me @ h323:videoconf05.fccn.pt] "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!"