February 2002 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 09 Feb '02

09 Feb '02

Brian, I realize that there is what we consider to be a huge amount of v6 address space. What you have to understand though is that you have a bunch of folks who are living day to day with the last time the powers that be decided that we had more address space than we could possible use. They gave out A's and B's and they too thought that there was more than we could possibly ever use. Now the registries (ARIN in particular) spends a lot of time trying to figure out how to reclaim that space. There are a lot of folks who feel that we're repeating old mistakes. Note also that if there are no justifications required to get a /32 except becoming what RIPE calls an LIR (this term varies from region to region), this means that it won't be long before folks there are many many small multihomed sites that have these blocks. Mirjam said herself in the meeting that the reason that RIPE has justification stuff required for V4 blocks now is because folks had figured this out and started getting LIR space just because they're multihimed. It isn't like we're starting from scratch here, folks are pretty sophistocated these days. Further since the actual methods of handing out the space vary from region to region it means that there may be more hurdles than just becoming an LIR. For example, in the RIPE region, when you get a block you can announce the whole block, but you have to ask permission to actually use each subnet (no matter how small). Of course their v6 policy may be different, who knows. This is not the same way that it works in all regions. Unless you get space from all three (soon to be 4) it is difficult to really understand the subtle differences. It wasn't my intent to argue this here, it was just my intent to point out that I doubted that this policy would reach consensus in all regions because of the past history. I misinterpreted the original note as a submission of changes for the document. I thought it was premature to make changes at this point. I am glad that wasn't the intent of the note. We'll see what happens. As Anne said (thanks Anne!) the APNIC meeting is coming up. The ARIN policy meeting is in April. Thanks! ---CJ From: Brian E Carpenter <brian(a)hursley.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Cathy, I'm still quite surprised by the way in which the fully justified conservatism of the registries for IPv4 space is being over-extrapolated to IPv6 space. If you look objectively at the argument that Gert gives, and consider how the size of the IPv6 prefix space compares to the total IPv4 space, /32 just isn't risky, and it gets rid of yet another judgement call. (I wasn't at the RIPE meeting either, but I did hear Mirjam talk on this topic yesterday.) Brian CJ Wittbrodt wrote: > > Since the events of the recent RIPE working group meeting have not > been discussed at either of the other regional policy forums, > proposing something here may be somewhat premature. I do not believe, > although things never cease to amaze me, that this will reach any sort > of consensus within the ARIN region. I am not sure about the APNIC > region. Based on some meetings with the European Government > Advisory Council (just after the RIPE meeting) it is clear that it is > important that we have a global policy. Is there maybe some way > that we could come up with a compromise that would reach consensus > in all three policy forums? Something other than requiring no > justification for a /32? > > Thanks > ---CJ Wittbrodt > (ARIN Advisory Council and ASO Address Council member) > > From: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assig >>nment > >>Global Policy > Hi, > > from your comments, I gather you have not been to the RIPE IPv6/LIR > policy meeting. So let's add a few comments (while waiting for James > Aldridge to publish the "official" word on it): > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria > [..] > > The goal was to give a site a /32 if it can justify it will use > > it. The word "immediately" (as in demonstrate an immediate need) is > [..] > > So the real issue here (and this comes up again in later parts of the > > document) is what is a reasonable way to objectively evaluate a > > request for address space that requires some guessing as to whether a > > proposed plan will actually be carried out. If the time frame is too > > long, it becomes easy to make optimistic plans that won't pan out, and > > then the RIRs get into a different problem. > > Consensus on the IPv6/LIR policy meeting was "drop the criteria". > > To be precise, I proposed the following: > > - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their > fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address > can get a /32. No further justification required. > > - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only > assigment of 2000 /32s per region. So the maximum wastage is 6000 > /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking > about), and 6000 additional routes. > After that, we're going to reconsider policy. > > There was concern from the other regional registries (ARIN and APNIC), > but broad consensus from the people from the RIPE region. > > Reasoning (shortened): > > - why are we putting criteria there? To keep out "some that we do not > want". Conservation is not an issue. Routing table growth might > be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know. > > - do we want major national research networks connecting something like > "50 universities"? YES > > - will this research network meet any criteria based on "you must use up > a big number of /48s, otherwise you can't get a /32"? NO, if you > assign a /48 per university (which would be plenty!), because that > means "you can only demonstrate a need for 50 /48s" > > On the other hand, if you say "I connect lots of private customers > over DSL lines, using fixed IP addresses, giving each user a /48 (which > is OK according to IETF guidelines)", reaching over 50 /48s is very > easy. > > Does this mean the second example is "more worthy" to get a /32? Does > it mean they will make "better use" of it? > > So all technical criteria based on /48 usage must fail, and criteria > based on single IP usage will fail as well (due to the /48 rule). If we > can't propose criteria that work, drop them - BUT limit the amount of > damage that can be done. > > [..] > > Or is it the 776 end site figure (i.e., too high)? > > Think of the research networks. One /48 per university would be > "according to the /48 rule: each SITE gets a /48". > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71770 (72395) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 >

5 6

Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 08 Feb '02

08 Feb '02

Wilfried and Denesh, My I have two points? 1, I do not think that it is possible to create a brand new ISP without IPv4 experience, therefore my suggestion is not a restriction for a real ISP, just for the virtual ones. 2, It is not mandatory to create a LIR In order to provide an IP service. An other LIR can provide a service for you. Cheers, Geza P.S. BTW, do you know any CERT service for IPv6? There will be many, many things that should be worked out before there will be real IPv6 service in life. We might need a two years very hactic transition period. "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> dátum: 2002.02.07 19:50:20 Címzett: global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net Másolat: woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at (Vakmásolat: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2) Tárgy: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? >My proposal is simple: only such a LIR should get IPv6 addresses in 2002 and >2003 that already had experiences in IPv4 registration for at least two years. Do you really want to propose to force "new kids on the block", intending to deploy IPv6 _from the beginning_, to spend money, human resources, etc. to build and operate a "disposable v4 network" for 2 years, in order to obtain IPv6 addresses?? How would they document the need for IPv*4* addresses when they intend to build an IPv*6* network?? I'm getting more and more puzzled by the amount of creativity people come up with, simply in order to make deployment of IPv6 *difficult*! Till now I thought that people have been working on IPv6 as a better alternative, and that everyone going for IPv6 would help the v4 address space to last longer. Looks like I was wrong. Well, honestly, I think we need a reality check break. Regards, Wilfried. Zu Tode gefuerchtet ist auch gestorben! (Apologies to the non-German-literate readers) - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

3 2

How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 08 Feb '02

08 Feb '02

Bob, the question here is the following: How to avoid that a boom of (virtual) LIRs destroys the whole Internet Registry structure? My proposal is simple: only such a LIR should get IPv6 addresses in 2002 and 2003 that already had experiences in IPv4 registration for at least two years. This might sound very restrictive, however it is better to start something new with people already having some experiences than creating a situation that we can not handle later on. In two years we can have lift this constraint. Best regards, Geza Turchanyi Bob Hinden <hinden(a)IPRG.nokia.com> dátum: 2002.02.06 20:20:49 Címzett: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> Másolat: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp(a)hilander.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian(a)hursley.ibm.com>, Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com>, Stuart Prevost <stuart.prevost(a)btinternet.com>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net (Vakmásolat: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2) Tárgy: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Gert, >In that 1/8th, we have 500 million /32s. I proposed to give out 2000 of >them per region. So roughly this is 0.001 per cent of the available >/32s in the 1/8ths that we're currently using. > >Yes, I vote for "let's waste that 0.001 per cent", and then reconsider. I think this is a good approach. To compare with the IPv4 history, many of the early allocations in IPv4 were the old Class A prefixes. Each Class-A prefix consumed 0.391% of the total IPv4 address space. To compare with the new IPv6 registry proposal, each IPv6 /32 prefix consumes 0.000000186% of the total IPv6 address space. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of address space used by a /29 prefix allocation in the IPv4 space. Bob - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

2 1

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 08 Feb '02

08 Feb '02

Hi. Yes. But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than giving the end site a /48 of their space. Which I could imagine as a way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32. Sure if ISPs are willing to filter them. If there are lots of them and they aren't aggregatable then the filters will be long. I suspect they'll end up being the swamp and everyone will end up carrying them even if they don't want to. History repeats itself on many levels... I am truly convinced that we can NOT solve the "I want to be independent" problem at registry level (or at least "not without doing real harm to some of the people we want to be 'in'"). Adding a rule like "you get a /32 only if you're multihomed" will make things worse, because "they" will then get a /32 *and* an AS number. I agree. But we're not currently saying that you get a /32 if you're multihomed, we're saying that you get a /32 if you're willing to pay money. How about you get a /32 if you can justify at least some reasonable level of utilization? That could be that you currently have a minimum allocation of IPv4 space from a registry already. It could be any number of things probably less restrictive than what was on the table until recently. Then sure you can get one of you are whoever, but at least you have some real justification for having a block from a registry and not your upstream. Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who should have a /48 from their upstream...? ---CJ

3 3

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocationand Assignment Global Policy
by Takashi Arano 08 Feb '02

08 Feb '02

At 10:30 02/02/08, Takashi Arano wrote: >So my small modification proposal is to replace "any LIR" with > >- ISP or organization who assigns and registers /48s to organizations > other than itself > >Although it is still ambiguous, we know the perfect >definition is impossible due to the nature of things. >Actually, an enterprise or university which >has subsidiaries in their networks like an ISP >can be difficult to be categorized. > >Anyway, I believe this is better than just saying "any LIR", >maybe because we can omit obvious end users. I am following up my own mail... Someone may think there is a hole in this definition, which is that any organization who disguise as an ISP could get /32. Yes, this rule does not prevent this. However, first there is no rules to prevent this kind of things. Second, this rule would give mental barriers to applicants. This is a big difference. The bottom of this idea is to give a /32 to all who faithfully declares themselves as inside this category. Regards, Takashi Arano P.S. I am still afraid I can convey my idea to you properly...

1 0

How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Bob, the question here is the following: How to avoid that a boom of (virtual) LIRs destroys the whole Internet Registry structure? My proposal is simple: only such a LIR should get IPv6 addresses in 2002 and 2003 that already had experiences in IPv4 registration for at least two years. This might sound very restrictive, however it is better to start something new with people already having some experiences than creating a situation that we can not handle later on. In two years we can have lift this constraint. Best regards, Geza Turchanyi Bob Hinden <hinden(a)IPRG.nokia.com> dátum: 2002.02.06 20:20:49 Címzett: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> Másolat: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp(a)hilander.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian(a)hursley.ibm.com>, Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com>, Stuart Prevost <stuart.prevost(a)btinternet.com>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net (Vakmásolat: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2) Tárgy: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Gert, >In that 1/8th, we have 500 million /32s. I proposed to give out 2000 of >them per region. So roughly this is 0.001 per cent of the available >/32s in the 1/8ths that we're currently using. > >Yes, I vote for "let's waste that 0.001 per cent", and then reconsider. I think this is a good approach. To compare with the IPv4 history, many of the early allocations in IPv4 were the old Class A prefixes. Each Class-A prefix consumed 0.391% of the total IPv4 address space. To compare with the new IPv6 registry proposal, each IPv6 /32 prefix consumes 0.000000186% of the total IPv6 address space. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of address space used by a /29 prefix allocation in the IPv4 space. Bob - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Gert Doering 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:54:28PM -0800, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: > Most of the companies that want to be "independent" will find one way > or the other to achieve this - either by announcing /48s all over the > region and possibly the world, or by opening a LIR, or by claiming they > want to be soooo multihomed (and maybe setting up a peering with some > other "independent" company to prove it). We have to be able to > solve *this* - teach 'em that BGP multihoming with "PI" space is just > one of many solutions, and develop more attractive solutions - instead > of hindering IPv6 progress any further. > > Why would they justify or claim anything? They can just become an LIR > with no justification and get a /32. Yes. But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than giving the end site a /48 of their space. Which I could imagine as a way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32. I am truly convinced that we can NOT solve the "I want to be independent" problem at registry level (or at least "not without doing real harm to some of the people we want to be 'in'"). Adding a rule like "you get a /32 only if you're multihomed" will make things worse, because "they" will then get a /32 *and* an AS number. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71770 (72395) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

5 6

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Gert Doering 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 09:38:46AM -0700, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > > I'm still quite surprised by the way in which the fully justified > > conservatism of the registries for IPv4 space is being over-extrapolated > > to IPv6 space. If you look objectively at the argument that Gert > > gives, and consider how the size of the IPv6 prefix space compares > > to the total IPv4 space, /32 just isn't risky, and it gets rid of > > yet another judgement call. > > The issue that I and many other people on the ARIN AC continue to come back > to is that this sounds a lot like the logic that was used when deciding how > to originally allocate IPv4 address space. I have heard that argument before, and my response boils down to "how much harm can we do?". We are currently allocating 1/8th of the IPv6 space. So if we *really* get everything wrong, we can try 7 additional times. In that 1/8th, we have 500 million /32s. I proposed to give out 2000 of them per region. So roughly this is 0.001 per cent of the available /32s in the 1/8ths that we're currently using. Yes, I vote for "let's waste that 0.001 per cent", and then reconsider. If we give every single LIR in the world a /32, long before the /32s run out, the *handling* of those registries will make be a HUGE problem (imagine a RIR having to handle 2^20 = 1 million!) LIRs. I do not opt for carelessness (I'd like a /8 for me, of course), but the numbers are so big in comparison to the number of potential candidates, and the scaling issues that would hit other places long before the IPv6 space runs out, that this really shouldn't be an issue. [..] > Memory can be very short. We must learn from history, or we will be doomed > to repeat it. We have enough addresses this time, so the lesson HAS been learned (yes, I know, everybody will shout at me about "640kbyte is enough", but there's only so much addresses that you can put on every square inch). (If we want to be conservative, stop putting /64s on local broadcast media, and stop handing out /48s to anybody who happens to have two different subnets in his home network. THAT is "wastive" - but everybody agrees that "we have enough /48s". Be consequent, and check the above numbers). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71770 (72395) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

4 5

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Thomas Narten 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> writes: > As for the routing table growth, yes, this is a very tricky problem, > but it cannot be solved at RIR level - the RIRs can not decide who is > an "important ISP" and who is a "less important ISP that should > prevented from having their own networks" (by being forced to use > upstream addresses from "important ISP" - renumbering is fairly easy > for end sites, but a PITA for an ISP plus all his customers). The RIRs may not be able to solve this problem, but they can surely adopt policies that will make it harder if not impossible to solve it. It is this aspect of the apparent proposal in RIPE that I have a BIG problem with. It is far from clear that we have to throw the baby out with the bath water. If folks have issues with the specific policies in the global document, then can we first see if we can fix them in a way that makes sense to all, and doesn't make addressing the routing table growth problem even harder than it already is? Please? Thomas

1 0

RE: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation andAssignment Global Policy
by Ext-Pauli.Wihuri＠nokia.com 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

It has been very interesting to follow your discussion here. Thanks. I know my comments/question may go off topic, but... >On 7 Feb 2002, Robert Kiessling wrote: >>Sorry to ask since I wasn't at the meeting: >>What was said about larger allocation sizes >>than /32, e.g. for multinational ISPs for >>which a /32 does not provide sufficient >>space for reasonable aggregation? On 7 Feb 2002, Tim Chown wrote: >Or for a national provider who may want to >give a static /48 to a few hundred thousand >customers. How much of the address assignment >maths includes static vs dynamic provisioning? Or for a global multinational company (not being ISP/LIR/...) having around the globe offices and sites and multiple public/private network transfer points. Here are the alternatives thought of: a) Introduce one global big enough prefix with hierarchy classes like region/country/city/site/business_unit/function/network_type and reserve space enough to each class AND also requiring optimized routing solution with many! private/public network transfer points. (preferred I guess) b) Applying for different prefix from all regions and introduce geographical address allcoation scheme with those different prefixes from all various regions... (feasible and likely, but not liked) c) Applying for different prefixes from all countries and introduce geographical address allocation scheme with thos hundreds of different prefixes... (no thanks :-) d) Other, what? -- Pauli Wihuri,Nokia,IPv6 network program manager,(external from Hewlett-Packard)

1 0