Re: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:17:11AM -0400, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
I've used IPv4 space in the past to connect to extranet providers using unique addresses, without connecting to the Internet. Is such use not allowed in the IPv6 world? One must promise to advertise the addresses to the Internet to get an allocation? End to extranet providers?
I wouldn't go so far as to say "it's not allowed". What I am saying is that the current IPv6 allocation policy was made with the needs of people in mind that want to connect to "the global Internet", so there is no clear answer how to fulfill those people's needs. When the policy was made, people were still suggesting the use of site-local addresses for "non-global" usage. Site-locals seem to be dead, so there is a hole in the policies right now. Passing on the question from the registry point of view to the IETF people (Michael & co): what are your recommendations how this can be addressed (in the double sense)? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:22:07PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
What I am saying is that the current IPv6 allocation policy was made with the needs of people in mind that want to connect to "the global Internet",
Not even that, as it doesn't take into account transit providers. -- Carlos Morgado <chbm@cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:39:53PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:22:07PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
What I am saying is that the current IPv6 allocation policy was made with the needs of people in mind that want to connect to "the global Internet",
Not even that, as it doesn't take into account transit providers.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Most of those do have some sort of end customers, though, and should easily be able to get address space under the current policy. For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted. The to-be-formed editorial committee needs to find a solution here. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:49:05PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:39:53PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:22:07PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
What I am saying is that the current IPv6 allocation policy was made with the needs of people in mind that want to connect to "the global Internet",
Not even that, as it doesn't take into account transit providers.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Most of those do have some sort of end customers, though, and should easily be able to get address space under the current policy.
In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are fairly small. Also, it's a chicken/egg problem. I can draw up a plan with planned allocations for current customers but I can't commit to customer deploy dates - I can't even commit to they being our costumers a month from now. In the mean while, I can't promise IPv6 transits to our costumers if I'm not sure I can deliver them. So, in order to allocate the resources to bootstrap the process I need to be "optimist" in my allocation plans ;)
For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted. The to-be-formed editorial committee needs to find a solution here.
I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ? I'm also curious to know about other providers sufering from this problem and what solutions they propose. cheers -- Carlos Morgado <chbm@cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote: [..]
In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are fairly small.
Size of customer doesn't matter (everybody who might have two or more network segments gets a /48).
Also, it's a chicken/egg problem. I can draw up a plan with planned allocations for current customers but I can't commit to customer deploy dates - I can't even commit to they being our costumers a month from now.
This is well understood by RIPE hostmasters. Right now, the rules are meant to be interpreted in a very relaxed way - this is: if you have 200 or more IPv4 customers (that have addresses from you) that might go to IPv6 *if* it really takes off in the next years, then you qualify. If you have significantly below 200 IPv4 customers, it's becoming difficult - but you should nevertheless talk to the RIPE NCC hostmasters and see what could be done. (If it really doesn't work out under the current policy, you could use a /48 from one of your customers to number your infrastructure and your services - yes, this sucks, but it's better than no IPv6 transit at all) [..]
For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted. The to-be-formed editorial committee needs to find a solution here. I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ?
It's more a lir-wg problem (as it's policy, not technical aspects). This specific problem wasn't discussed in either working group, but we are aware of it. There are a couple of other cases as well.
I'm also curious to know about other providers sufering from this problem and what solutions they propose.
Indeed. Comments welcome. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Sat, 17 May 2003, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote: [..]
In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are fairly small.
Size of customer doesn't matter (everybody who might have two or more network segments gets a /48).
I think he ment: "The number of customers in this category are fairly small".
This is well understood by RIPE hostmasters. Right now, the rules are meant to be interpreted in a very relaxed way - this is: if you have 200 or more IPv4 customers (that have addresses from you) that might go to IPv6 *if* it really takes off in the next years, then you qualify.
If you have significantly below 200 IPv4 customers, it's becoming difficult - but you should nevertheless talk to the RIPE NCC hostmasters and see what could be done.
Hostmasters only have to "enforce" current policies. And in the case of transit providers (in this case a tier-2), having a "number" doesnt really help, because its putting all the weight into *dimension*. A similiar tier-2 in Germany probably wouldnt have the same difficulties... why? 2 hints: "market dimensions", "being present at the WG meetings where the policies are made". I think we need an extra rule on the policy stating: BUT, if you are a transit provider for ISPs (at least two -- even the smallest country has 2 ISPs?) you should also get a /32 (no more different slashes, please...). Another definition of a tier-2 transit provider might be the presence on a certain number of IXPs, or the interconection level with the tier-1s ? [more ideas needed...] I must also state that denying an allocation to smaller countries' transit providers is slowing IPv6 deployment on these smaller countries, and also strenghtening the business of the bigger ones by means of this *ugly* policy (in reality, the EC might not really like this as it is now).
(If it really doesn't work out under the current policy, you could use a /48 from one of your customers to number your infrastructure and your services - yes, this sucks, but it's better than no IPv6 transit at all)
A solution to become "client-dependant"...
[..]
For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted. The to-be-formed editorial committee needs to find a solution here. I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ?
It's more a lir-wg problem (as it's policy, not technical aspects).
Sure.
This specific problem wasn't discussed in either working group, but we are aware of it. There are a couple of other cases as well.
The only way of changing this is people coming forward and report it! Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 08:28:02PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote: [..]
In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are fairly small.
Size of customer doesn't matter (everybody who might have two or more network segments gets a /48).
Yes, that is indeed one scenario. But consider the extreme case of an operator which only sells transits to multihomed customers who already have their own address. Unless that operator starts assigning /48s to P-t-P costumer links he'll be hard depressed to come up with 200 nets qualifying as end site on his own infrastructure. This kind of network is not very diferent from a very big IX, except it needs to be globaly routable (you know what I mean, don't pick at there is no global routing table ;))
Also, it's a chicken/egg problem. I can draw up a plan with planned allocations for current customers but I can't commit to customer deploy dates - I can't even commit to they being our costumers a month from now.
This is well understood by RIPE hostmasters. Right now, the rules are meant to be interpreted in a very relaxed way - this is: if you have 200 or more IPv4 customers (that have addresses from you) that might go to IPv6 *if* it really takes off in the next years, then you qualify.
Or, if the smaller clients with PA IPv4 space have totally diferent time frames than the bigger PI transit clients. Anyway, I see what you mean.
If you have significantly below 200 IPv4 customers, it's becoming difficult - but you should nevertheless talk to the RIPE NCC hostmasters and see what could be done.
(If it really doesn't work out under the current policy, you could use a /48 from one of your customers to number your infrastructure and your services - yes, this sucks, but it's better than no IPv6 transit at all)
While being possible technically, I fear this is highly impossible :)
[..]
For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted. The to-be-formed editorial committee needs to find a solution here. I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ?
It's more a lir-wg problem (as it's policy, not technical aspects).
I figure interested people are in both lists so I tried to keep cross posting down ;) -- Carlos Morgado <chbm@cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
Hi, On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:34:08AM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
Yes, that is indeed one scenario. But consider the extreme case of an operator which only sells transits to multihomed customers who already have their own address. Unless that operator starts assigning /48s to P-t-P costumer links he'll be hard depressed to come up with 200 nets qualifying as end site on his own infrastructure.
Maybe you misunderstood my last two e-mails. I'm well aware of that problem, but it's tricky to get the policy right here. I think one can tackle this by extending the clause to "200 customers, OR 20 downstream ASes" - or by dropping the clause altogether. [..]
This is well understood by RIPE hostmasters. Right now, the rules are meant to be interpreted in a very relaxed way - this is: if you have 200 or more IPv4 customers (that have addresses from you) that might go to IPv6 *if* it really takes off in the next years, then you qualify.
Or, if the smaller clients with PA IPv4 space have totally diferent time frames than the bigger PI transit clients. Anyway, I see what you mean.
The current focus for the RIPE hostmasters is "make sure IPv6 addresses are available to people wanting to work with it", and not "conserve!!!". [..]
It's more a lir-wg problem (as it's policy, not technical aspects).
I figure interested people are in both lists so I tried to keep cross posting down ;)
It's sometimes unavoidable, as many of the IPv6 things end up in the ipv6-wg, of course, but policy really belongs to lir-wg. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi, to followup on myself (sorry for that): On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 08:28:02PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
If you have significantly below 200 IPv4 customers, it's becoming difficult - but you should nevertheless talk to the RIPE NCC hostmasters and see what could be done.
This is still my basic recommendation: talk to the NCC hostmasters, and *iff* they reject your application, come and talk to us (lir-wg) so that we can fix the policy, if necessary (but this is a slow process). Concerning the original question, a new idea just popped up that would solve the problem of the "big transit providers" - we could adapt the "200 customers" clause to "200 /48 assignments to customers, OR provide transit to 20 other ASes". Of course we might end up in dropping the "200 /48s" rule altogether, but this is pretty much open at this stage. If you want to participate in the IPv6 policy making process - and all of you are very welcome, of course! - please join the "global-ipv6" list (global-v6@lists.apnic.net, send mail to Majordomo@lists.apnic.net with "subscribe global-v6" in it). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (3)
-
Carlos Friacas -
Carlos Morgado -
Gert Doering