Hi Rudolf!
>I am new to these discussions on the list, so if I am saying something
>stupid, please tell me so.
Not at all!
The worst thing that is happening here is that we re-iterate things.
So what....
>>I don't have a point of view. A lot of people are telling me they will
>>choose the /48 road. Without a detailed definition of site, almost
>>everyone's view will have to be accepted. That's what I am seeing in all
>>these discussions.
>
>That is what has been bothering me the most in the whole discussion about
>who gets a /32 assignment and who doesn't.
This is one thing that is so surprising for me in these discussions:
There seems to be an implicit assumption that we SHOULD come up with all
sorts of criteria to BLOCK distributing IPv6 addresses, rather than
getting the technology rolled out :-().
As an aside, I still see IPv6 address space as a *global resource*, not
something which a (roughly) self-defined group of entities partitions
amongst them (tier-X ISPs). Becoming an LIR is possible for (almost)
every type and shape and size of organisations (at least in the RIPE
region) - but it is not for free.
There are quite some good reasons for distributing globally unique IPv6
addresses to entities which would not fit the "classical" ISP (or even
tier-X ISP) definition.
And those amongst us who worry about end-to-restoration, making things
simple(r), looking into the future, should recognize that there is no
"rfc1918" space in v6-land. (Yes, I know about the site-local address
concept. But why should we plant time-bombs ticking when there are
plenty of those magic bit combinations around?).
>Both the number of /48
>assignments as well as the determination of what an end-site is, are
>completely arbitrary
I agree. It's the same level of "arbitray-ness" that is wired into "200
sites", trying to define an ISP, and the like. It's better than nothing
at all (i.e. no consensus) - at least for now.
>and therefore in the long run unworkable.
We'll see. We havent tried yet. And by the way, we have tried to define
"ISP" in v4-land for years, and we failed.
> Almost
>everyone that is an LIR now, is able through one trick or another to
>justify an allocation of a /32
Actually, this was the point of view that had emerged in the RIPE region
during the Jan'02 meeting. "Every LIR should get an allocation" if they
can document the need for 1 address. The "tricking" started to come into
the game when we again tried to impose (artificial) criteria/ limits/
restrictions/...
Btw, I still do remember the days (around '93) when a LIR was
allowed to give away a /23 to every "site", no questions asked.
And it didn't *break* the Internet, it made it *succeed*!
In the end every policy is a compromise. Some of us don't like the
version we do have on the table right now because we think it is too
restrictive. Some of us dislike the thing because we perceive it as
too liberal. Such is life.
> and as Joao points out, the RIR's won't be
>able to do anything against it.
The RIRs should not act *against* "something"! They are supposed to
execute a consensus, written down in a document and agreed by the
community! It took a loong time, and many discussions, to arrive at the
doc we do have on the table right now. And there are things in it which
are "fuzzy". That was done deliberately, after trying (and failing) to
come to more precise (and sometimes restrictive) definitions that would
still be acceptable to all the 3(4) regions. On the other hand quite a
few things were straightend out (like the exclusive reference to a /48
holder), and I'd really urge all of you to *completely read* the final
doc.
> And then I wonder if in the long run we
>won't see a global routing mess, because many more organisations will be
>able to register as LIR and justify a /32 in the same way. This is exactly
>what the requirement for 200 potential sites tries to achieve, but fails to
>do.
Well, again one of those "assumptions" that this is bad :-) I still
think that we can accommodate a *lot* of IPv6 routing with the slack
from the (predicted) growth in v4 that did NOT happen in v4-land....
>The community should be able to come up with a better definition of who
>should be allowed to get a /32 and who is condemned to go to an upstream
>provider. This should be more objective than the current rule and not
>result in the problems that we see now for RIR's and IXP's and smaller
>NREN's and ISP's, .
Welcome to the show. I hope you would be around to help when we have to
re-work the thing to adapt it to the evolving Internet :-)
Just one comment on the use of "smaller" here: we couldn't come up with
a good set of criteria to define a "smaller" "whatever". What are the
criteria? Real estate? Gigabit/sec? Terabit storage? number of
contracts? number of web pages? annual turnover? annual profit (or loss
:-)? The tier-1 ISP of yesterday is the chapter 11 case of today and a
department of another ISP tomorrow.
As I said during the discussion, (given the IETF recommendation) a SOHO
customer of a "commercial" ISP s/would qualify for a site .eq. a /48.
Probably a handful of physical subnets would be used. And it is easy to
have a few hundred of those, eventually (probably).
A university, or a regional edu-network could be structured alongside a
single /48 as well. Such a "site" could happen to serve some 5000..10000
..50000 users in quite some hundred physical subnets (LAN, ISDN, ADSL,
wire-less). Which of those network would be the "smaller" one??
Is it really "cheating" if we start to treat a primary and secondary
school as a site with their own /48? Or the other way 'round, why is the
"commercial ISP" not treated as a site with *1* /48? I am stretching
things here just a little bit, on purpose...
>I think we can evade a global routing slump if we allow the RIR's to
>continue the excellent work they have done in the last couple of years.
>They have conserved adresses well.
In one of the doc.s there is that famous statement that conservation and
routing aggregation can, or tend to, be conflicting goals.
>But we should provide them with adequate
>rules to work with, so that they can aggregate well in the IPv6 future too.
>
>>The problem is the lack of arguments for an RIR on what is the right thing
>>to do.
>>
>>Joao
>
>Let us provide them with the right arguments to do the right thing.
Fair enough, but -
>Maybe we should take that discussion back to the global v6 list.
wouldn't it be prudent to try to *implement* the new policy, learn by
doing so, and *then* go back to the drafting table?!
I do not believe anybody claiming that we/he/she can find out *now* what
the best solution is in a few year's time. The 'net is constantly
evolving....
>Greetings,
>
>Rudolf van der Berg
>Dutch German Internet Exchange
>http://www.ndix.net
OK, I think I'll leave it at that for this discussion :-)
Thanks for your good questions and observations!
Cheers,
Wilfried.
_________________________________:_____________________________________
Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at
UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear list members,
My name is Lamia Chaffai and I'm working on the IPv6 deployment project
in the Tunisian Internet Agency ( the NIC and LIR for the TN domain).
We have recently obtained our IPv6 address block from RIPE (
2001:0970::/32) and we'll be very grateful to you if you could possibly
help us identify a partner with which we can establish an IPv6 tunnel to
start deploying our IPv6 network until we succeed to establish a native
IPv6 link.
Thank you in advance for your help and collaboration.
Kind Regards
Lamia Chaffai
Tunisian Internet Agency
http://www.ati.tnhttp://www.ipv6net.tn
13, Rue Jugurtha Mutuelleville
1002 Tunis Tunisia
phone: +216 71 846100
fax: +216 846600
Hello,
Disclaimer:
I hide sensitive information (ASN, company name,...).
Flames & co > /dev/null
RIPE are welcome to contact me because i don't find contact except the
registration contact for members only.
My company have an operational ipv6-site since 17 january 2001 on 6bone
(http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?NDSOFTWARE)
We made a lot of tests with our IPv6 experimental network and we provide
IPv6 connectivity to many IPv6 projects. We do BGP peering with a
private ASN (we announce only our routes with community no-export if the
peer accept it and use correct filter) because we don't have our ASN.
Now, we will build a real IPv6 network (native peering, peering with
other ISP on Internet Exchange,...). My company created the first french
IPv6 Internet Exchange, FNIX6 (http://www.fnix6.net) but my company
can't peer on FNIX6 becase we don't have public ASN.
Yesterday, i sent my ASN request to the RIPE by my LIR (peer1):
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
X-NCC-RegID: <obscured-regid>
#[ANNOUNCED ADDRESS RANGES]#
<obscured-ipv6-/32>
#[PEERING CONTACTS]#
<obscured-peer1-email>
<obscured-peer2-email>
#[AUT-NUM TEMPLATE]#
aut-num: NEW
as-name: NDSOFTWARE-AS
descr: NDSoftware IP Network
import: from AS<obscured-peer1-as>
action pref=100;
accept ANY
import: from AS<obscured-peer2-as>
action pref=100;
accept ANY
export: to AS<obscured-peer1-as>
announce NEW
export: to AS<obscured-peer2-as>
announce NEW
remarks: Network problems to: noc(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
remarks: Peering requests to: peering(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
remarks: Abuse notifications to: abuse(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
remarks: NDSoftware have an open peering policy.
admin-c: AUTO-1
tech-c: AUTO-1
notify: notify(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
mnt-by: NDSOFTWARE-MNT
changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net
source: RIPE
#[MAINTAINER TEMPLATE]#
mntner: NDSOFTWARE-MNT
descr: NDSoftware IP Network
admin-c: AUTO-1
tech-c: AUTO-1
upd-to: ipmaster(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
mnt-nfy: notify(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
auth: MD5-PW $1$uAUWFve7$aPxYj8kqY4sCqr7g7fL6J/
notify: notify(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
mnt-by: NDSOFTWARE-MNT
referral-by: RIPE-DBM-MNT
changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net
source: RIPE
#[PERSON TEMPLATE]#
person: Nicolas DEFFAYET
address: NDSoftware
address: 57 rue du president Wilson
address: 92300 Levallois-Perret
address: France
phone: +33 671887502
e-mail: nicolas.deffayet(a)ndsoftware.net
nic-hdl: AUTO-1
notify: notify(a)ndsoftwarenet.com
mnt-by: NDSOFTWARE-MNT
changed: nicolas.deffayet(a)ndsoftware.net
source: RIPE
#[ADDITIONAL INFORMATION]#.
We request a pTLA to 6bone as soon we get our ASN.
We are the founder of FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6).
We provide IPv6 transit to many projects.
#[TEMPLATE END]#
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
Reply of RIPE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
Thank you for your request for an AS number, but with IPv6 you do not
need to
use any AS numbers nor route objects.
Please have a look at the IPv6 documentation at the following link:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
Very stupid reply, for do BGP peering, request a pTLA to 6bone and peer
on FNIX6, we need a public ASN.
There isn't IPv6 documentation for ASN on
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6.html
=> How get an ASN for our new IPv6 network ?
(we don't want do IPv4 network)
Thanks
Best Regards,
Nicolas DEFFAYET
Dear Mailing List Subscriber,
The RIPE NCC will change its mailing list software from "majordomo" to
"mailman" on 17 October 2002. The new mailing list software will give
users more options to manage their subscriptions to the RIPE and RIPE
NCC mailing lists. Additionally, this change is being made to ensure
stability and continuity of mailing list management and archiving.
The new mailing list software will give users a number of options
using a web interface:
- Subscribing and Unsubscribing to mailing lists
- Reviewing general information about the mailing lists
- Viewing subscriptions to mailing lists
- Temporarily disabling mail delivery
- Choosing between regular and digests of mailing list postings
- Acknowledgements to postings
The web interface will be located at the following URL:
http://www.ripe.net/mailman/
As well as using the web interface, mailing list users can manage
their subscription and retrieve information by using an e-mail client.
Further details on this are available at the above URL.
Please note that if mailing list users are already subscribed to one
or more mailing lists, they do not have to take any action. Messages
can still be sent to the regular mailing lists addresses and
subscriptions will not have to be re-confirmed.
If you have any questions about this migration, please feel free to
send an e-mail to <webmaster(a)ripe.net>
Kind Regards,
Jeroen Bet
RIPE NCC Mailing List Moderation
