Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
David R Huberman wrote:
Of course, that one sub-TLA gives us a total amount of address space which
is
adequate for our current requirements for the whole network but once this i s split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their ow n routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable routing...
And when you explain this to RIPE, how do they respond? If you can make a bona fide engineering argument for obtaining more than one sub-TLA, it seems to me that any RIR is obliged to seriously consider that argument.
The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue more address space." So we can have a /35 fragmented among something like 20 different networks but can't get any additional address space until 80% of the current /35 is used. James -- James Aldridge, Senior Network Engineer (IP Architecture) KPNQwest, Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL Tel: +31 70 379 37 03; GSM: +31 65 370 87 07
The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue more address space."
Please forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask, "where is it written that Supernational Registries may not receive multiple sub-TLAs?" Is this a RIPE NCC interpretation of the bootstrap criteria or is it actually written down somewhere? /david
David R Huberman wrote:
The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue mo
re
address space."
Please forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask, "where is it written that Supernational Registries may not receive multiple sub-TLAs?"
Is this a RIPE NCC interpretation of the bootstrap criteria or is it actually written down somewhere?
As far as I can see from a quick scan of rfc2928, it refers to "registries" only in terms of the RIRs and not as local IRs or other customers of the RIRs. Thus, I can only assume that restriction is the RIPE NCCs interpretation of the criteria. I intend to raise this issue at the LIR WG (which I co-chair) at RIPE40 in Prague in October. Any clarification from RIPE NCC staff prior to RIPE40 would be appreciated. James
participants (2)
-
David R Huberman -
James Aldridge