- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] up a few thousand meters
by Randy Bush 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

apocrypha can be misleading > As far as I can tell, v6 deployment in the ARIN region is not taking > place due to desinterest. > > The APNIC people have very clearly stated at R40 (at least) their need > for a workable interim policy, and there is still none. They are > building production IPv6 networks today. come to ietf in minneapolis, which is still in the arin region as far as i know, where c&w will be the upstream running native v6 on their backbone. [ this is not a side prototype atm network running on bsd/kame or cisco's slow path marketecture, but a full bore, line rate, native v6 enabled backbone ] randy

1 0

Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

Gert, I agree, ONE DAY setting up IPv6 only services MUST be possible. However, I do not think that we can apply this assumption today. Most probably not in the next two years to come. The question here is how to enable the transition period for most of the ISPs as soon as possible, without creating too big mess. If you end up with a heavily scattered address space, then the IPv6 transition is killed before it has been completed. Everybody will have addresses, just the routing will be missing. I do not know how to solve all aspects of this problem, but keeping the number of IPv6 LIRs under control is a MUST, I think. Best, Geza Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> dátum: 2002.02.08 14:46:46 Címzett: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Másolat: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, denesh(a)cyberstrider.net, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tárgy: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? Hi, On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:17:29PM +0100, turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu wrote: > 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. It MUST be possible if we want IPv6 to be a success. It's to be assumed that the employees of this company will have IPv4 experience (of course), but that doesn't mean the company has a track record of "having been IPv4 LIR for xx years". > 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. But for those cases, this whole discussion does not apply. 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 - - 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 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Arano-san, First I'd like to respond to your last sentence, your English is just fine... thanks for the thoughtful note. I have one comment (see below) At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: >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...? Yes, this is the point. I basically supports RIPE's consensus. First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far. Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" is almost OK, but one problem may be to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as I heard. This may include an large enterprise. One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested. In the ARIN region, it is true, anyone can become a member of ARIN by paying a fee. to get address space, however, you have to give quite a lot of justification. Every ARIN member does not have address space. I just want to make sure that's clear. I am a member of ARIN as an individual. I paid $500 for the year 2002. I have no address space and I am not what you'd call an LIR. ---CJ

3 2

RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Tim, I am sure that there is a misunderstanding here. I never proposed anything that would limit the IPv6 address allocations to any organisation. What I said, however, that address assignement need some experiences - even if there are "plenty addresses"; those wanted to have IPv6 address should go to an experienced LIR; and anyhow, IPv6 networking is not a turnkey issue. Probably we need another two years for that. LIR not equal to an ISP. Best, Geza Tim Chown <tjc(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> dátum: 2002.02.11 12:54:48 Címzett: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Másolat: Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net>, "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tárgy: Re: Válasz: Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu wrote: > 2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 > service. A good example is 6net. > > 6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason > behind: it would be too risky to use a production network. > > This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new > IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and > the installed services. I disagree; if 6NET were a commercial project, not a EC-funded research and development project, we would want IPv6 address space. With your rules, we could not get it, which is very bad. Likewise with the Euro6IX project, where the partners are predominantly telcos rather than NRENs. Tim

2 1

Válasz: Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Denesh, The most probably you know the answers ;-) 1, We applied restrictions on IPv4 LIRs. This is "the slow start mechanism". Restrictions are not for themself. The goal of hardening the life of a new LIR was just to filter off a half million students, that might want to create a LIR, just to decorate their business card. There are many-many small business unit that may pay the fees to become a registry, however, not able to provide a service that realy need a LIR. Too many LIR is against routability. I would not recommend an address allocation strategy that kills the network. Today some ISPs filters IPv4 /24 announcements - if we are not careful with IPv6 LIRs, we will end up of filtering of the minimum allocation to a LIR. Therefore I recommend to think about the network as a whole. I like the liberty however I do not like the mess. 2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 service. A good example is 6net. 6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason behind: it would be too risky to use a production network. This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and the installed services. Applying restrictions in the transition period is better than creating a mess. Best, Geza Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> dďż˝tum: 2002.02.08 14:23:35 Kďż˝rem, vďż˝laszoljon Cďż˝mzett Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> Cďż˝mzett: Turchďż˝nyi Gďż˝za/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Mďż˝solat: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tďż˝rgy: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:17:29PM +0100, turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu (turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu) wrote: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? > 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. I disagree on two points Firstly, what is an ISP (real or virtual) - define one. Secondly, IPv4 experience? What experience? registry experience, transport experience, network harware experience? what about those 'new' ISPs that have employed the services of, or even recruited, a person who had 10 years IPv4 experience. Company is new.. but the experience is old.. who are we to say that an ISP is experienced or not? -- Denesh Bhabuta Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net - Computer shop now live me.uk domains released - http://www.cyberstrider.net/meuk.shtml

2 1

Válasz: Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Denesh, The most probably you know the answers ;-) 1, We applied restrictions on IPv4 LIRs. This is "the slow start mechanism". Restrictions are not for themself. The goal of hardening the life of a new LIR was just to filter off a half million students, that might want to create a LIR, just to decorate their business card. There are many-many small business unit that may pay the fees to become a registry, however, not able to provide a service that realy need a LIR. Too many LIR is against routability. I would not recommend an address allocation strategy that kills the network. Today some ISPs filters IPv4 /24 announcements - if we are not careful with IPv6 LIRs, we will end up of filtering of the minimum allocation to a IPv6 LIR. Therefore I recommend to think about the network as a whole. I like the liberty however I do not like the mess. 2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 service. A good example is 6net. 6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason behind: it would be too risky to use a production network. This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and the installed services. Applying restrictions in the transition period is better than creating a mess. Best, Geza Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> dďż˝tum: 2002.02.08 14:23:35 Kďż˝rem, vďż˝laszoljon Cďż˝mzett Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> Cďż˝mzett: Turchďż˝nyi Gďż˝za/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Mďż˝solat: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tďż˝rgy: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:17:29PM +0100, turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu (turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu) wrote: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? > 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. I disagree on two points Firstly, what is an ISP (real or virtual) - define one. Secondly, IPv4 experience? What experience? registry experience, transport experience, network harware experience? what about those 'new' ISPs that have employed the services of, or even recruited, a person who had 10 years IPv4 experience. Company is new.. but the experience is old.. who are we to say that an ISP is experienced or not? -- Denesh Bhabuta Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net - Computer shop now live me.uk domains released - http://www.cyberstrider.net/meuk.shtml

1 0

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