The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :)
inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 descr: Holy See - Vatican City State country: VA So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :) Greets, Jeroen Reply-To explicitly set to myself so that people don't reply to this silly post to all the lists... override to the one you like if you want </back to your normal schedule>
* Jeroen Massar:
inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 descr: Holy See - Vatican City State country: VA
So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :)
How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 assignments to other organisations" rule? By the way, what happened to 2003::/19? A /19 for just a few dozen /48s?
Hi, On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:20:24PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 descr: Holy See - Vatican City State country: VA
So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :)
How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 assignments to other organisations" rule?
I'm sure there are 200 different organizations inside the Vatican.
By the way, what happened to 2003::/19? A /19 for just a few dozen /48s?
I'm not sure what you smoked today, but it must have been something funny. Who claims that the /19 is "for a few dozen /48s"? In the short run maybe, but that's not the goal anyway. The address allocation policy takes into account the current number of IPv4 subscribers, and assumes "eventually, all of them will convert to IPv6". The intention behind that is "*one* routing table slot, not a large number of allocated-as-time-goes-by /32s". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
* Gert Doering:
How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 assignments to other organisations" rule?
I'm sure there are 200 different organizations inside the Vatican.
Sure, they can assign an /48 to every inhabitant. 8->
By the way, what happened to 2003::/19? A /19 for just a few dozen /48s?
I'm not sure what you smoked today, but it must have been something funny. Who claims that the /19 is "for a few dozen /48s"?
The RIPE WHOIS server does. Well, they still have got a year to carry out their promised business plan involving 200 assignments.
In the short run maybe, but that's not the goal anyway.
Huh? The goal is 200 assignments within two years. If it were strictly enforced, LIRs would simply assign prefixes to their employees (and if there aren't enough, to their pets), but this is probably not in the spirit of that rule. To me, this just illustrates that LIRs are as good as end users when it comes to responsibility for global resource consumption.
Hi, On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 11:14:47PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
By the way, what happened to 2003::/19? A /19 for just a few dozen /48s?
I'm not sure what you smoked today, but it must have been something funny. Who claims that the /19 is "for a few dozen /48s"?
The RIPE WHOIS server does. Well, they still have got a year to carry out their promised business plan involving 200 assignments.
Well, you might have noticed the ongoing discussion about the usefulness (and the legality) of putting residential end-user's data into the RIPE DB. The relevant document (ripe-267) actually doesn't mandate to use the *RIPE DB* for registration - it mandates ------------ snip ----------- 3.3. Registration Internet address space must be registered in a registry database accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. This is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to End Users. The goal of registration should be applied within the context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws. ------------ snip ----------- so most people seem to agree that it's valid to put "this /<x> is for residential users, if there is anything wrong, please contact our abuse desk, telephon number 12345" into the database (and produce more detailed documentation to the RIPE NCC if you ask for more space).
In the short run maybe, but that's not the goal anyway.
Huh? The goal is 200 assignments within two years.
No, this is one of the criteria to get address space *at all* (have a *plan* for 200 customers - which is reasonable to assume if you're rolling out IPv6 and have a customer base of some million users). For larger allocations than a /32, of course the plan is to give IPv6 addresses to a significantly larger number of end sites - so that a /32 would not be large enough.
If it were strictly enforced, LIRs would simply assign prefixes to their employees (and if there aren't enough, to their pets), but this is probably not in the spirit of that rule.
To me, this just illustrates that LIRs are as good as end users when it comes to responsibility for global resource consumption.
The main difference (to spoil your pet peeve) is that for a LIR, it's very likely that you'll see "one prefix in the routing table for many organizations", while for an end user you'll see "one prefix per end user". Which supposedly makes a difference. (NB: basing this whole "I want to bash someone!" thread on a */19*, which requires fairly thorough justification, seems really farfetched to me) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
Hi, Il 30-04-2006 19:31, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> ha scritto:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:20:24PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 descr: Holy See - Vatican City State country: VA
So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :)
How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 assignments to other organisations" rule?
I'm sure there are 200 different organizations inside the Vatican.
Of course, more than 200... In the world 1.098.366.000 are Catholics (2004) The Holy See has Diplomatic Relations with 174 States (2003) and more... Only for Florian info... please visit: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/corpo-dip lomatico_index_en.html http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/docs_index_en.htm http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv /informazione_generale/sp_ss_scv_info-generale_en.html Many thanks Stefano Pasquini _________________________ Dr. Stefano Pasquini Internet Office of the Holy See Cortile del Triangolo V-00120 Vatican City Vatican City State Email: pasquini@vatican.va Web: http://www.vatican.va
Hi, On May 1, 2006, at 2:16 AM, Stefano Pasquini wrote:
I'm sure there are 200 different organizations inside the Vatican. Of course, more than 200... In the world 1.098.366.000 are Catholics (2004)
The Holy See is going to provide IPv6 connectivity to 1.098.366.000 Catholics?
The Holy See has Diplomatic Relations with 174 States (2003) and more...
Mostly irrelevant ("mostly" because if the Holy See is going to provide IPv6 connectivity interconnecting their missions to those states, an ISP delegation might make sense). The question is how many _interior networks_, not people or states, is the Internet Service Provider operated by the Holy See going to interconnect? Rgds, -drc (who has has seen the justification "there are more than 1 billion people" once too often)
Mostly irrelevant ("mostly" because if the Holy See is going to provide IPv6 connectivity interconnecting their missions to those states, an ISP delegation might make sense).
The question is how many _interior networks_, not people or states, is the Internet Service Provider operated by the Holy See going to interconnect?
I would have thought that an independent state should have the right to receive at least one PI prefix allocation. The thought of one's country being entirely dependent on receiving its entire space from a (most likely) commercial organisation in another country is not very appealing. Imagine if your country could only get its connectivity from another country, and "diplomatic issues" with that country caused your connection to become unreliable. Whether or not the Vatican can fulfil these requirements, I'd say that every state should have a right to at least one independently routable prefix (both v4 and v6) BB
Rgds, -drc (who has has seen the justification "there are more than 1 billion people" once too often)
Ben, This would appear to be yet another instantiation of the geo- political vs. network topological addressing argument.
I would have thought that an independent state should have the right to receive at least one PI prefix allocation.
Independent states don't need address space. Really. Devices on state or independently owned and operated networks within and between independent states do. At least for Internet connectivity.
The thought of one's country being entirely dependent on receiving its entire space from a (most likely) commercial organisation in another country is not very appealing.
Grant a country PI space and the easiest way to deal with routing that space is to have a country-wide monopoly on telecommunication services. Not particularly appealing to me, but some folks (in particular, the prospective monopoly) might prefer this approach.
Imagine if your country could only get its connectivity from another country, and "diplomatic issues" with that country caused your connection to become unreliable.
In general, I imagine governments tend to take a somewhat dim view of basing critical infrastructure on external parties. More realistically, a country will have a telecommunications infrastructure they, by law, control over which services (such as the Internet) run. Whether there is a single PTT building/using that infrastructure or multiple carriers is a toss up (though the tendency has been towards the latter). However, in either case, ISPs (domestic or foreign) use that infrastructure to provide their services. In my personal view, allocating address space on geo-political boundaries is either throwing address space away (because it isn't routed) or contributing to The Greater Swamp (because it is and the only way it can be is if it is in the DFZ). Rgds, -drc
* Stefano Pasquini:
I'm sure there are 200 different organizations inside the Vatican.
Of course, more than 200...
And you've got a plan to hand out IPv4 address assignments to them, sure. Please don't take this personally, it isn't. I believe that everybody should be entitled to his own independently routeable IPv6 prefix, no questions asked. It appears as if we are already close to that in practice (as far as LIRs are concerned). The official policy just doesn't reflect it.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:20:24PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 assignments to other organisations" rule?
The rule is "planning to provide within two years", not "must provide within two years". There's nothing to enforce. People plan a lot of things, and a lot of plans don't work out. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
participants (7)
-
Ben Buxton -
Daniel Roesen -
David Conrad -
Florian Weimer -
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Stefano Pasquini