On Sun, 12 May 2002, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
I don't think university-like organizations ever need more than a /48. One and the only really problematic thing is if they provide access to students/staff/etc., e.g. via DSL, dial-up, dorms or what. /64 would usually be ok (except very large universities and the like), /48 would not.
Universities are ISPs, and it is perfectly legitimate to assign /48s to students. Invariably, each class I teach IPv6 subnetting, students ask me "ok, now what if want to try this?" and my answer is "go to freenet6 and get a /48". Yes, they're going to use only two or three subnets possibly with only with one host each but they do need more than a /64 and I do not think that allocating anything between a /48 and a /64 is debatable at this point.
=> one detail which is never called to mind here is an university which gives internet access to its students *outside* the university (i.e. in a context where students can need a /48) should be sued by all commercial ISPs for illegal competition using public money...
The students can need a /48 for example to be able to easily connect to both commercial ISP and university (the same prefix length argument). Giving out /48's in universities is valid, but IMO /64's would also be quite enough. Basically we'd end up with one /48 for main use and 1-2 /48's for dial-up/DSL/etc.
So universities can't be real ISPs by them selves, and to come back to the first topic,
This is in practise a valid assumption, but I don't think the way you derived it is valid. That is: there is no law (usually) which says the university should give poorer service to its students, staff etc. than ISP's. I really can't see Universities being sued, except if they provide services to those that haven't enrolled or something.
if you are an ISP or an ISP-like organization with a 2 year plan for 200 or more IPv6 /48 customers, the 3 BGP peers with the default-free routing table rule should not be a problem.
You took a different approach here: if Big_Enough_ISP then 3 BGP peers and entries in DFZ should not be a problem This is new (perhaps this is the case, perhaps not. I can easily think of scenarios where small dial-up ISP's have 200 customers but no 3 BGP peers). But as was pointed out: if 3 BGP peers and entries in DFZ may not be Big_Enough_ISP from Global Policy point of view This what started this debate: NREN's. Note: in some small countries (Denmark?) there may not be that many Exchange Points or commercial operators that such a peering is possible. Difference is there.
The real problem is today an organization is supposed to be "large enough" to get a sub-TLA from its RIR or to be connected to such an organization which delegates a prefix. The case where the organization providing the connectivity doesn't provide a prefix too is both against the ideas of "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy" and perhaps its letter.
That is a real problem. Usually probably caused by the fact that a) upstream organization does not care (about IPv6 at this point at least), or b) they can't really get a block anyway (or it is too difficult, and they don't want to go through all the troubles) due to too strict policies. In these cases, they probably end up with 6bone pTLA. Which is probably for the good for now. -- 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