May 2001 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fw: W.G. Last Call on "Default Address Selection for IPv6"
by Thomas Trede 25 May '01

25 May '01

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Hinden" <hinden(a)iprg.nokia.com> To: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:26 PM Subject: W.G. Last Call on "Default Address Selection for IPv6" > This is a IPng working group last call for comments on advancing the > following document as a Proposed Standard: > > Title : Default Address Selection for IPv6 > Author(s) : R. Draves > Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-04.txt > Pages : 20 > Date : 14-May-01 > > Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor > editorial comments to the author. This last call period will end two > week from today on June 7, 2001. > > Bob Hinden / Steve Deering > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Re: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?]
by Pekka Savola 16 May '01

16 May '01

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote: [snip] > > --- > > * IAB/IESG recommended /48. > > * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is > > required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!] > > * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given > > 802.11, bluetooth, etc. > > --- > > > > I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed. > > > > Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to > > give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home? > > The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the > ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one > subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48. Yes. I can already see the pricing: One device: 20$ 2+ devices: 40$ Network of devices: 60$ Would this kind of "voluntary" assignment work in practise? I wouldn't bet a penny on it; ISP's would just do /128 and write the customer contracts so that the other methods would not be possible in practise. Also, I do not see how a wireless device needs /64 when dial-up wouldn't. I think it's common today that e.g. 2 home computers share an internet connection. With mobiles and other gadgets going IP this might increase. If /128 assignment is the default, this by default would limit the options people are given. Someone frustrated with different pricing would write a hack to do NATv6. I don't think this should be encouraged. The rules should be set so that the default assignment is at least /64. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

4 3

[pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?]
by John Wells 16 May '01

16 May '01

Here's a message from the IPv6 WG listserv. This should start some discussion.. John -- John WELLS INRIA Rhône-Alpes équipe Planète - ENSIMAG 3A/Télécomm et Réseaux Virginia Tech MS/Computer Engineering - Networking and Visualization Lab Clé public: finger wells(a)mansoun.inrialpes.fr <interne>

5 4

IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points
by Mirjam Kuehne 15 May '01

15 May '01

[Apologies for multiple postings. I suggest to keep the discussion on <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> as it is related to address allocation policies]. Dear colleagues, At RIPE 39 last week in Bologna the issue of IPv6 address assignments to Internet Exchange Points was discussed (see also my mail from 24 April 2001 to these lists). There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange Points. An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join. The RIPE NCC proposes to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points under the above policy. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

2 1

ETNO position on IPv6 addressing policy
by COLOMB Jean-Marc BRX/DRSA/DOR 10 May '01

10 May '01

Dear Colleagues, As I have announced at the last RIPE meeting, I am posting for your information the ETNO Common Position on IPv6 policy, to be used as an input into the ongoing discussions on this issue. For those who have not attended the last WG meeting, ETNO is the principal European trade association of network operators, gathering 45 operators and LIRs at the same time (www.etno.be) It includes both historic operators and new entrants. Some of them already have been granted IPv6 addresses. I have been chairing the Naming, Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG of ETNO for some years. The following position has been signed up by all 45 members of ETNO, further to the drafting work led by Niall. It is now available on the ETNO site at http://www.etno.be/ETNO positions/latest position papers. ETNO supports /29 because it is consistent with the current allocation policy as defined by the RIRs and better fits the LIRs' needs than the current /35. Indeed, ETNO considers /29 as a minimum allocation size to allow a sub-TLA registry to run its activities efficiently. The rationale for a wider address block for operators acting as LIRs lies in aggregation, efficiency of routing tables and better management of address space by TLA registries. These registries need enough space to serve their customers and NLA registries in the best possible way. Quote "ETNO Common Position on IPv6 addressing policy The foreseeable needs for public addresses for the coming years, especially for UMTS, DSL, cable modemsï¿½ is a source of concern for operators and the Internet community as a whole. According to BT's estimates presented at the RIPE 38 meeting in Amsterdam and agreed by the participants, it can be expected that the IPv4 space will reach exhaustion in the most likely case around 2005 - 2007. Therefore, it is in the Internet community's interest to stimulate at the soonest a broad usage of IPv6 addresses, where no shortage should exist in theory. It is the ETNO opinion that such stimulation can only be obtained by setting up rules of management of IPv6 addresses that would avoid at the same time: ï¿½ to introduce artificial limitations that might hamper the move to Ipv6, ï¿½ an exaggerated increase of routing tables. However, ETNO notes the current policies consisting of the: ï¿½ allocation to Top Level Aggregation (TLA) registries of /35 addressing space ï¿½ reservation by the RIRs of six additional bits together with the new proposal for the systematic assignment of /48 to end users potentially running sub networks, as agreed at RIPE 37. This does not allow TLA registries to efficiently manage their addressing space in a long term perspective, nor to properly allocate addresses to their Next Level Aggregation (NLA) registries and assign addresses to end users, since their available space is reduced to 13 bits. ETNO favours a structure that permits maximum aggregation. This would enable operators and ISPs to structure their addressing plan in a long-term perspective. Therefore ETNO strongly supports the idea presented at RIPE 38 to allocate from now on /29 to all TLA registries, including the existing ones. In the same spirit of facilitating a timely move to IPv6, ETNO also suggests that the opportunity be taken at the end of the bootstrap period, expected end 2001, to review and ease the conditions for registries to be allocated IPv6 addresses." Unquote Jean-Marc Colomb Chairman ETNO NANI WG

1 0

IPv6 Bootstrap Phase
by Mirjam Kuehne 07 May '01

07 May '01

Dear colleagues, As discussed at RIPE 39 in Bologna last week, we have almost reached the end of the bootstrap phase for IPv6 allocations as originally defined in the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document": 4.2.2.1. Duration of Bootstrap Phase " The eligibility criteria in this section will only apply until 100 requesting organisations have received allocations of sub-TLA address space, provided that no more than 60 of these organisations are located in one Regional IR's region. After this threshold has been reached, the bootstrap phase will be considered to be over and Regional IRs will only make allocations to organisations that meet the general criteria in section 4.2.1. " The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have jointly made almost 80 IPv6 allocations to date. At the RIPE meeting it was suggested to continue allocating under the bootstrap criteria until 100 allocations have been made and to further extend the bootstrap phase. No specific end for the bootstrap phase has been suggested. The RIRs will inform the community as soon as 100 IPv6 allocations have been made. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0