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

Re: Getting addresses
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 25 Oct '02

25 Oct '02

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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 4

New draft: "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects"
by leo vegoda 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for the comments we have received on the draft document "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects". We have revised it to incorporate the suggestions you have made. The meaning of the labels has been made clearer, in line with the comments received. ALLOCATED-BY-RIR - For allocations made by an RIR to an LIR. ALLOCATED-BY-LIR - For allocations made by an LIR or an LIR's downstream customer to another downstream organisation. ASSIGNED - For assignments made to End User sites The new draft is available from our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/new-value-status.html> We would welcome comments on this new draft until Thursday, 1 August 2002. All comments and suggestions should be sent to <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC, Registration Services Assistant Manager

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num object s
by Gert Doering 08 Jul '02

08 Jul '02

Hi, On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:53:02PM +0100, Guy Davies wrote: > I would prefer RIR-LIR-ALLOCATED, LIR-SUB-ALLOCATED and > LIR-USER-ASSIGNED (or similar) if we must keep ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED > in the descriptions. I don't think that it is immediately clear from > the proposals below whether LIR-ALLOCATED is allocated by an LIR or > to an LIR. That would be fine with me. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45809 (45931) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num object s
by Guy Davies 08 Jul '02

08 Jul '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would prefer RIR-LIR-ALLOCATED, LIR-SUB-ALLOCATED and LIR-USER-ASSIGNED (or similar) if we must keep ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED in the descriptions. I don't think that it is immediately clear from the proposals below whether LIR-ALLOCATED is allocated by an LIR or to an LIR. Regards, Guy > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:42 PM > To: leo vegoda > Cc: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; db-wg(a)ripe.net; > sig-db(a)apnic.net; > policy-db(a)apnic.net; apnic-talk(a)apnic.net > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num > objects > > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 06:21:24PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote: > > The RIPE NCC needs to implement a new status attribute for the > > inet6num object to reflect the new policy agreed by the RIPE, > > ARIN and APNIC communities. > > > > The RIPE NCC suggested the following new status attributes for > > the inet6num objects: > > > > - RIR-ALLOCATED > > (For allocations made by an RIR to an LIR) > > > > - LIR-ALLOCATED > > (For allocations made by an LIR or an LIR's downstream > > customer > > to another downstream organisation) > > > > - ASSIGNED > > (For assignments made to End User sites) > > I haven't seen any replies to this so far. > > I want to express that I like this proposal. It doesn't introduce > any new and yet-undefined terms, but makes clear what the status of > a given network is. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: > 45809 (45931) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.1 iQA/AwUBPSmLLo3dwu/Ss2PCEQIJdQCeOKDqqTLKCuB+o3pWMj/XJ41QJMQAnROW EWRBiRI4rPpF9DRbhrxYcK0S =Rab7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is reserved by us.

1 0

Status field for inet6num objects
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 08 Jul '02

08 Jul '02

[** Mail posted to both APNIC and RIPE lists in the hopes of trying to find a solution suitable for all users of RIPE or RIPE-derived software **] Dear all, the inet6num, like the inetnum object, has a field named "status" which stores some information about the nature or position of a block of addresses in the delegation chain, from the RIR through to the end user. Currently, the status field for inet6num object is generated by the Database software based on the size of the address block and its possible values are: o TLA o SubTLA o NLA o SLA This notation has been deprecated and it is time to adapt the database. Discussions on this matter have identified the usefulness of having the capability to distinguish between allocations made by the RIR, allocations made by an LIR or their customers and assignments to end users. As such, we propose to modify the "status" attribute of the inet6num object to be: a) not-generated. This means users must assign a value to the status attribute when creating the object, just as in the inetnum object b) have the following possible values: RIR-allocated LIR-allocated Assigned to be used according to the following set of rules: The RIR-allocated status can only be used in objects representing allocations created directly by the RIR. The LIR-allocated status can be used by LIRs and their customers to represent blocks of addresses that are not assigned to specific end users. There can be several levels of objects with this status. The Assigned status must be used in objects representing assignments to end users (households, companies, enterprises, etc) We hope that with this modification the information in the Database will more accurately describe the registration of IPv6 address space. A possible transition to the new values could be: 1) RIRs modify status fields for allocations 2) Any new objects and modifications to existing ones must have a value for the status field corresponding to the ones described above. Otherwise the update will fail. 3) RIRs contact LIRs to have the status of assignments and sub-allocations updated. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC

6 8

Reminder: filters have to permit /32s now
by Gert Doering 06 Jul '02

06 Jul '02

Hi, for those of you that are doing strict IPv6 prefix filtering: please adapt your filters to permit /32s and /35s from 2001::/16. RIPE is now allocating /32s, and upgrading existing /35s to /32 - and I am right now observing some IPv6 connectivity issues that could be explained by "our 2001:608::/32 (active since yesterday) is not being accepted by some ASes". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45809 (45931) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

1 0

New IPv6 policy implemented on 1 July 2002
by Paul Rendek 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the implementation of the new IPv6 policy effective 1 July 2002. This IPv6 policy was accepted by consensus at RIPE 42 and is common to all Regional Internet Registry communities - APNIC, ARIN, and the RIPE NCC. The new policy replaces the provisional IPv6 policy launched in 1999. The IPv6 Policy documentation is available from the RIPE document store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/internet-registries.html The current set of IPv6 documents are: - IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region - Supporting Notes for the Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region - IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region - Supporting Notes for the IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region Key points of the new IPv6 policy you should be aware of: - The minimum allocation size is /32; - LIRs currently holding a /35 have the option of expanding their allocation to a /32 on request; - In 2002, no additional fees are charged for IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC service region. The RIPE NCC IPv6 web pages can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/IPv6/ Regards, Paul Rendek Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0