Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net][6bone] Re: sTLA alloc policies (fwd)
Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP"). A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that. The "one /48 fits all" policy sucks. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48282 (47686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP").
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
The "one /48 fits all" policy sucks.
Perhaps I'd better forward this discussion on the global-v6 policy list. It seems clear to me that 200 employees are inadequate.. but I believe "internal organizations" is not in the spirit either. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:41:01AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
The "one /48 fits all" policy sucks.
Perhaps I'd better forward this discussion on the global-v6 policy list.
It might be time to start a new round. Now we have a policy in place that at least doesn't slow down things too much, we need to get the "kinks" out of it... Also the policy is currently explicitely not addressing the problem of very large transit-only ISPs, which clearly do not fall under the current policy but seem to have valid reasons for wanting "independent" address space. While I strictly oppose having a "if you whine loudly enough, we'll give you your /32, no matter who you are" clause, one approach might be: - an enterprise is a LIR - this enterprise has 3+ customers with their own sTLA - this enterprise clearly states "we can't use down- or upstream space" (downstream due to the downstream potentially, upstream because there is no "single" upstream) - this enterprise doesn't want to assign to end users -> give them their own address block, size to be determined I want this to be restrictive, to not invent "PI"...
It seems clear to me that 200 employees are inadequate.. but I believe "internal organizations" is not in the spirit either.
Personally, I admit that I don't mind if Very Big Companies that span multiple continents get their own sTLA. There's not that many of them - even if there are 5000, both the routing system and the address space can easily handle that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48282 (47686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Am Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2002 09:31 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP").
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
I think as a student and even a students home is part of the university and not a third party entity, the university could give him any prefix within their address space, and yes e.g. a /64. It is part of the universities SLA space and it's up to them to decide what should go to the students home. This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable. Regards, Christian -- JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Schild A DFN project Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster Project Team email: Zentrum fuer Informationsverarbeitung join@uni-muenster.de Roentgenstrasse 9-13 http://www.join.uni-muenster.de D-48149 Muenster / Germany email: schild@uni-muenster.de,phone: +49 251 83 31638, fax: +49 251 83 31653
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Christian Schild wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2002 09:31 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP").
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
I think as a student and even a students home is part of the university and not a third party entity, the university could give him any prefix within their address space, and yes e.g. a /64. It is part of the universities SLA space and it's up to them to decide what should go to the students home.
This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable.
Being usually for a loose policy on these issues, i can agree with Christian, and i wouldnt be shocked if a university (/48) decides that student homes get one /64 or several /64s (if several is the choice, perhaps it will be easier to reapply for a second /48 on the university side... ;-) But i think its rather difficult for a student home to apply for a /48, being that traffic routed via university... Will NRENs have that task of assigning /48s to everyone inside universities? Hard to imagine... 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
Christian, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:44:48PM +0200, ext Christian Schild wrote:
This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable.
note that this is not a rule - it's considered to be a good practise, but you are certainly allowed to use less if you think that makes sense (and hopefully your customer will not complain or actually, maybe your customer actually should complain if you do this :-)). what it really means is: you won't get in trouble with the RIR who gave you the address space if you assigned /48's to end-sites (under the current set of rules). David K. ---
David Kessens wrote:
Christian,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:44:48PM +0200, ext Christian Schild wrote:
This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable.
note that this is not a rule - it's considered to be a good practise, but you are certainly allowed to use less if you think that makes sense (and hopefully your customer will not complain or actually, maybe your customer actually should complain if you do this :-)).
what it really means is: you won't get in trouble with the RIR who gave you the address space if you assigned /48's to end-sites (under the current set of rules).
Quoting Timothy Lowe (RIPE NCC) at the AIAD last wednesday: "If you have reasonable doubt that a client needs more than one (1) /64, give them a /48" His and other presentations from the AIAD (AMS-IX IPv6 Awareness Day) are available from: http://www.ams-ix.net/aiad/presentations.html <SPAM> As promised by Pim van Pelt and myself at RIPE42, SixXS is live: http://www.sixxs.net </SPAM> Greets, Jeroen
participants (6)
-
Carlos Friacas -
Christian Schild -
David Kessens -
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Pekka Savola