Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
Hi. Yes. But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than giving the end site a /48 of their space. Which I could imagine as a way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32. Sure if ISPs are willing to filter them. If there are lots of them and they aren't aggregatable then the filters will be long. I suspect they'll end up being the swamp and everyone will end up carrying them even if they don't want to. History repeats itself on many levels... I am truly convinced that we can NOT solve the "I want to be independent" problem at registry level (or at least "not without doing real harm to some of the people we want to be 'in'"). Adding a rule like "you get a /32 only if you're multihomed" will make things worse, because "they" will then get a /32 *and* an AS number. I agree. But we're not currently saying that you get a /32 if you're multihomed, we're saying that you get a /32 if you're willing to pay money. How about you get a /32 if you can justify at least some reasonable level of utilization? That could be that you currently have a minimum allocation of IPv4 space from a registry already. It could be any number of things probably less restrictive than what was on the table until recently. Then sure you can get one of you are whoever, but at least you have some real justification for having a block from a registry and not your upstream. Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who should have a /48 from their upstream...? ---CJ
Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:52:50PM -0800, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
[ utilization as criteria ]
Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who should have a /48 from their upstream...?
One of thereally problematic ones are research networks that serve a number of universities. Like "50 universities". Each university is a site, and gets a /48. So this whole network has a need for about 50 /48s, and will never be able to meet the 776 /48s criteria in the last draft. On the other hand, the actual IP address usage will most likely be much higher than the average, due to /48s being given to LARGE sites. So using numbers of /48s as criteria will always be either "too high" or "too low to have an effect". I think one criteria that I would agree to is "some entity that gives /48s to other entities" (focussing on that aspect of an ISP/LIR). Now how to prove that? On the other hand, if someone really *wants* "PI" space, they can easily cheat against this rule (found a separate organization that will "assign /48s to the other company" and thus fulfills the criteria - or just claim "we're going to provide ISP services for our customers as well", which then accidentially never happens). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71770 (72395) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who should have a /48 from their upstream...?
Yes, this is the point. I basically supports RIPE's consensus. First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far. Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" is almost OK, but one problem may be to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as I heard. This may include an large enterprise. One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested. So my small modification proposal is to replace "any LIR" with - ISP or organization who assigns and registers /48s to organizations other than itself Although it is still ambiguous, we know the perfect definition is impossible due to the nature of things. Actually, an enterprise or university which has subsidiaries in their networks like an ISP can be difficult to be categorized. Anyway, I believe this is better than just saying "any LIR", maybe because we can omit obvious end users. Those who think this rule is still too loose can propose some additional option such as AS-holder or multihomed. But IMHO, we don't need these just for a bootstrapping phase. These new concepts would bring another issues. By limiting bootstrapping, we can minimize damages if we have. I am for Gert in this point. Lastly, we may have many ways for limiting the phase. I can give you another options here. 1) 2000 /32s * 3 as RIPE supports 2) the end of year 2003 3) 2001:0200::/23, 2001:0400::/23, 2001:0600::/23 only Maybe, we should take LACNIC and AfriNIC into consideration and learn from some confusion about "100 sTLAs". All are not a good or bad thing, just an issue to be decided. We need good compromise. I am sorry if you don't understand my bad English. But please be aware that this is a GLOBAL mailing list, not ARIN's nor RIPE's. Sometimes we don't understand difficult idioms nor spoken languages. Thank you for your collaboration and cooperation. Regards, Takashi Arano
At 10:30 02/02/08, Takashi Arano wrote:
So my small modification proposal is to replace "any LIR" with
- ISP or organization who assigns and registers /48s to organizations other than itself
Although it is still ambiguous, we know the perfect definition is impossible due to the nature of things. Actually, an enterprise or university which has subsidiaries in their networks like an ISP can be difficult to be categorized.
Anyway, I believe this is better than just saying "any LIR", maybe because we can omit obvious end users.
I am following up my own mail... Someone may think there is a hole in this definition, which is that any organization who disguise as an ISP could get /32. Yes, this rule does not prevent this. However, first there is no rules to prevent this kind of things. Second, this rule would give mental barriers to applicants. This is a big difference. The bottom of this idea is to give a /32 to all who faithfully declares themselves as inside this category. Regards, Takashi Arano P.S. I am still afraid I can convey my idea to you properly...
Thank you, Arano-san Takashi Arano wrote:
At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who should have a /48 from their upstream...?
Yes, this is the point.
I basically supports RIPE's consensus. First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far.
Yes, actually, there are some voice in JP as well about this initial allocation criteria, most from ISPs running accessing services in less populated cities.
Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" is almost OK, but one problem may be to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as I heard. This may include an large enterprise.
If this is true, then, it seems like "buying" an address block, which will be against our goal of "IP address is public resource", as well. This is not quite good from this point of view.
One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested.
So my small modification proposal is to replace "any LIR" with
- ISP or organization who assigns and registers /48s to organizations other than itself
This sounds very reasonable. The current draft was well-thought based on the deep care of "aggregation", not from the aspect of vast availability of address space, since the routing technology seems not that sophisticated enough to allow everyone with /32. In this sense, an organization should contribute to the world community in keeping routing table a practical size, and should report assignment status for community to monitor the activity. If it fails, then, it could be very hard to maintain the order and the good nature of our community. We should not keep these in mind, I guess.
Although it is still ambiguous, we know the perfect definition is impossible due to the nature of things. Actually, an enterprise or university which has subsidiaries in their networks like an ISP can be difficult to be categorized.
Anyway, I believe this is better than just saying "any LIR", maybe because we can omit obvious end users.
I think so. There is no need to give an independent /32 to end users. If they want more than one /48, then, they can request to have another.
Those who think this rule is still too loose can propose some additional option such as AS-holder or multihomed. But IMHO, we don't need these just for a bootstrapping phase. These new concepts would bring another issues.
By limiting bootstrapping, we can minimize damages if we have. I am for Gert in this point.
Let's see what happen.
Lastly, we may have many ways for limiting the phase. I can give you another options here. 1) 2000 /32s * 3 as RIPE supports 2) the end of year 2003 3) 2001:0200::/23, 2001:0400::/23, 2001:0600::/23 only Maybe, we should take LACNIC and AfriNIC into consideration and learn from some confusion about "100 sTLAs".
To avoid any future trouble of "go for other regions to get a /32" type of things by hitting the cap in one region, I guess, the second option is fair enough. Then, we do not have to care about LACNIC or AfriNIC community coming in later on. However, if we set this bootstrapping phase in the Interim policy, then, we should also agree to switch to the current criteria at the end of the phase with no question unless we have an alternative criteria agreed by then.
All are not a good or bad thing, just an issue to be decided. We need good compromise.
I am sorry if you don't understand my bad English. But please be aware that this is a GLOBAL mailing list, not ARIN's nor RIPE's. Sometimes we don't understand difficult idioms nor spoken languages. Thank you for your collaboration and cooperation.
Regards, Takashi Arano
so am I.:-) Kosuke -- **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ Kosuke Ito, Base Strategy Planning Group IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 mailto: kosuke@v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
Please allow me to send this off again to some of you. Ignore the first one if you got one. Kosuke ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you, Arano-san Takashi Arano wrote:
At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who should have a /48 from their upstream...?
Yes, this is the point.
I basically supports RIPE's consensus. First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far.
Yes, actually, there are some voice in JP as well about this initial allocation criteria, most from ISPs running accessing services in less populated cities.
Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" is almost OK, but one problem may be to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as I heard. This may include an large enterprise.
If this is true, then, it seems like "buying" an address block, which will be against our goal of "IP address is public resource", as well. This is not quite good from this point of view.
One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested.
So my small modification proposal is to replace "any LIR" with
- ISP or organization who assigns and registers /48s to organizations other than itself
This sounds very reasonable at lease for bootstrap. The current draft was well-thought based on the deep care of "aggregation", not from the aspect of vast availability of address space, since the routing technology seems not that sophisticated enough to allow everyone with /32. In this sense, an organization should contribute to the world community in keeping routing table a practical size, and should report assignment status for community to monitor our activity. If it fails, then, it could be very hard to maintain the order and the good nature of our community. We should keep these in mind, I guess.
Although it is still ambiguous, we know the perfect definition is impossible due to the nature of things. Actually, an enterprise or university which has subsidiaries in their networks like an ISP can be difficult to be categorized.
Anyway, I believe this is better than just saying "any LIR", maybe because we can omit obvious end users.
I think so. There is no need to give an independent /32 to end users. If they want more than one /48, then, they can request to have another.
Those who think this rule is still too loose can propose some additional option such as AS-holder or multihomed. But IMHO, we don't need these just for a bootstrapping phase. These new concepts would bring another issues.
By limiting bootstrapping, we can minimize damages if we have. I am for Gert in this point.
Let's see what happen.
Lastly, we may have many ways for limiting the phase. I can give you another options here. 1) 2000 /32s * 3 as RIPE supports 2) the end of year 2003 3) 2001:0200::/23, 2001:0400::/23, 2001:0600::/23 only Maybe, we should take LACNIC and AfriNIC into consideration and learn from some confusion about "100 sTLAs".
To avoid any future trouble of "go for other regions to get a /32" type of things by hitting the cap in one region, I guess, the second option is fair enough. Then, we do not have to care about LACNIC or AfriNIC community coming in later on. However, if we set this bootstrapping phase in the Interim policy, then, we should also agree to switch to the current criteria at the end of the phase with no question unless we have an alternative criteria agreed by then.
All are not a good or bad thing, just an issue to be decided. We need good compromise.
I am sorry if you don't understand my bad English. But please be aware that this is a GLOBAL mailing list, not ARIN's nor RIPE's. Sometimes we don't understand difficult idioms nor spoken languages. Thank you for your collaboration and cooperation.
Regards, Takashi Arano
so am I.:-) Kosuke -- **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ Kosuke Ito, Base Strategy Planning Group IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 mailto: kosuke@v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
participants (3)
-
CJ Wittbrodt -
Kosuke Ito -
Takashi Arano