On Mon, 13 May 2002, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
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).
=> I don't believe in a /48 per student in an university framework, nor in commercial/academic dual homing.
I don't think it'll work all that well either, but some do; else "it's easy for NREN to reach 200 /48's" would never have come up.
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.
=> there are a lot of laws about what may be done with public money and they give either an AUP which makes the network useless (a standard issue with "research" networks) or some kind of "collaboration" between a commercial ISP (in Europe the "historic" one) and the university. In the second case, there is no more a need for commercial/academic dual homing (a backdoor between the ISP and the internal network of the university is enough) and the "by them-selves" is removed.
How well this applies to everywhere in the RIPE region is questionable.
I really can't see Universities being sued, except if they provide services to those that haven't enrolled or something.
=> in this part of Europe I saw ISPs put pressure on universities and even local communities in order to "convince" them to not provide services. But even without this kind of practice, to provide ISP services is not the job of an university and should be avoided when there are other solutions. BTW I don't believe this applies to an USA large university/ campus.
I haven't heard about this at all here in Finland at least. So stating this kind of thing as a fact (applicable in all the RIPE areas) is a bit questionable.
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).
=> small == not big (:-)? IMHO here big enough is tear-N with N very small, and don't forget the 200 customers have to be IPv6 customers.
From the global policy point of view, any customer is fine. With a time span of 2 years, you can convince RIPE/ARIN/APNIC that the customers may get interested of IPv6.
If you *do* have 200 IPv6 customers *today* (those that pay for the service, not necessarily IPv6 service, but something), I'd surely consider one a real player here. But an issue is about DSL operators with 1,000,000 IPv4 customers beginning to introduce IPv6 services..
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.
=> I think the issue is not with UNI-C but with Nordunet which is a NREN and doesn't follow the standard ISP way to do business (of course, a NREN doesn't do business :-).
Peter Juul can comment better here if necessary, but the chain is: NORDUnet (transit for Nordic NREN's) Forskningsnettet (NREN for Denmark) UNI-C (University) The issues, as far as I understand it, are that: 1) NORDUnet is an "transit for NREN's" and does not provide any services or address space; NORDUnet does not have 200 customers. 2) Forskningsnettet (which is basically same as UNI-C I think) does not have have 3 peering partners?; Forskningsnettet does not have 200 customers (Universities etc.) either. -- 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