Hi, I haven't seen any responses to this, so let me comment... On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:09:35AM +0000, Janos Mohacsi wrote: [..]
Problem statement for transit/exchange only IPv6 address space:
The current Proposed TLA and NLA Assignment Rules (RFC 2450) and IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format (RFC 2374) is not particularly supporting addressing long haul transit providers or exchange providers.
I don't think there is any issue that needs to be addressed. There are three different cases: - the ISP in question is offering IPv6 address space to its customers, that is, will do LIR services. In this case he can get address space from the RIRs, no problem. - the ISP in question is not offering LIR services, but has an upstream provider who *is* offering LIR services. So he can get an /48 from them with no problem. A /48 means "a full /64 for 65000 networks", which is quite some. If /127s are used on point-to-point links (which is legal) it's definitely "enough for ever". If /64s are used, it may be necessary to come back to his upstream provider and get a second /48 - which is possible. No problem here either. - the ISP in question is a Tier-1 provider, has no upstream provider that can provide IPv6 addresses to him, and does not offer LIR services to his customers. (Out of curiosity: does such an ISP exist? I haven't found one.) If such ISPs exist in reality, they could get an /48 from the "Yi" customer that you mentioned - or they could just become a LIR and get address space for their own, which is not impossible, and the costs for becoming a LIR should be neglectible for a Tier-1 provider. No big problem. Conclusion: I do not see the need for a special-case provider who needs IPv6 addresses, has no upstream provider to get a /48 and does not want to become a LIR. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 72980 (73128) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299