February 2001 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Proposals on IPv6 Allocation policy
by Dave Pratt 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

Hiya all, Here are some thoughts on IPv6 allocation policy. Hopefully the resulting discussion will be active and constructive, resulting in appropriate feedback, policy, IETF-drafts, RFCs, etc. If the text below gets corrupted then you should be able to view it at: http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html This concerns the LIR and IPv6 WG at RIPE and I4ve sent to both lists accordingly. I suggest all replies/discussion be carried out primarily on the IPv6 list. Cheers Dave Viag Interkom GmbH ----------------------------- Proposals on IPv6 Allocation policy Hierarchy versus Address Conservation The RIR allocation policies for IPv6 appear to be based on the assumption that IPv6 addresses are a scarce resource that are about to run out. This assumption is totally untrue. Instead RIR allocation policies need to be focussed 90% on aggregation and hierarchy, and optimising the global routing table. One of the worst mistakes an RIR can make is to allocate too few addresses to an LIR, resulting in later subsequent allocations and pollution of the global routing table. Classbased versus Convenience: What is appropriate for an "alpine village" ISP is not appropriate for a large global ISP. LIR should not therefore all receive the same "standard prefix" but receive sensible allocations based on reasonable long term expectations on use. We should aim so that only 10% or so of LIR need to come back to ask for a second allocation within 5 years. Dividing on strange bit boundaries (eg. /35) in combination with the format of writing IPv6 addresses makes notation and calculation very hard for most people and will result in many mistakes over time. In such a large address space the benefits of always making allocations on a 4 bit boundary are greater than the resulting inflexibility. This is seen in the original TLA /16 and NLA /24 proposals. Allocations should be at /16, /24 or /32 - possibly /20 /28. Sub allocations by LIR to their customer ISPs should similarly be /32 /40, or possibly /36 /44. Present Allocation sizes: Bit usage density should be allocated evenly over the addressing hierarchy. I could use rfc1715's h-ratio here but refuse to use a measurement unit where everything is squashed between 0 and 0.301. At present a "site" has 80 bits (fixed at /48). Of these the average usage is likely to be 10 to 100 nodes (ranging from 10k for a medium corporation to 1-5 for the far more predominant home user). The usage density is therefore approx: 2^80/100 or well over 1 in 10^20 !!! can be certain there will not be more than around 100,000 top level routes. Accordingly the usage density is 2^35/100,000 or approx 1 in 350,000. An LIR with a present /35 and only a single customer (/48) has already reached a density of 1 in 8192 !!! Does anyone know why the service provider is treated differently ? The need for hierarchy within an LIR: In practise an LIR must introduce hierarchy to prevent excessive routes. Global LIRs must do this at multiple levels. Typically a Global LIR might have about 10 regions and about 10 areas per region - although hopefully these would not all be fixed in size. This hierarchy must be set at the outset, although a fraction (say up to 2/3) could be reserved to provide additional resources to areas/regions that grow faster than originally expected. In each of these approx. 100 areas, the larger LIRs (national or global) will have predominantly X customers who are small and/or medium size ISP's. The smallest of these would typically expect to have enough addresses to serve 256 customers - /40. Accordingly a minimum allocation for such an LIR forseeable at the outset is at least a /24. Minimal initial allocation based on registered IPv4 usage We must not allocate too few addresses to an LIR since this will cause problems for us all, and especially him and his customers now and in the future. Since addresses are not in short supply, and one of the worst mistakes an RIR can make is to allocate too few addresses, a minimum first allocation could be based on the customers current REGISTERED IPv4 usage. In fitting with the above sections a possible simple yet flexible approach would be to adopt the following table: Small - /40 Medium - /32 Large/National - /24 International - /16 These categories also fit extremely well with the present RIPE membership categories which could help reduce administrative checking of claims to be Large/National, etc. Until Multihoming issues are sorted (see also below) we must adopt a similar approach to corporate LIRs. With the category used calculated as if they were not a corporate LIR. A side effect of this rule is that it will encourage owners of historical non-registered allocations to register them with one of the RIRs (if they want an appropriate IPv6 allocation). These are minimum initial allocations. Larger initial allocations can be requested if appropriately justified. For example a new 3G UMTS consortium operating in a major european country but which has no LIR background would typically qualify for the same prefix as a large/national LIR Usage requirements for additional allocations: IPv4 addresses are in short supply, appropriately there is therefore a rule stating that 80% of addresses at each level must be "used" before additional addresses are "provided". In IPv6 this rule is not only invalid, it just does not make sense. Even more crazily, RFC2450 states 90% !!! In order to prevent stupid wastage and bad network design, this rule should not be relaxed below about 10% (I am reminded of a network I came across using RFC1916 addresses where a /16 was assigned to each of 100 sites - which varied from 5 to 10,000 nodes). In contrast 80% or 90% is unnecessary and unreachable in IPv6 where addresses are not a scarce resource. Multihoming and allocations to non-service providers: At the time of writing no fully satisfactory multihoming technique is available. We must therefore provide current owners of globably routed IPv4 address space with a TLA with an appropriate mask. Failure to do this will actively discourage organisations considering a move to IPv6. We must be pragmatic, and at the same time encourage IPv6 use.

1 0

SV: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
by Bjarne Carlsen 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: David R Huberman [SMTP:huberman@gblx.net] > Sendt: 8. februar 2001 01:34 > Til: Robin > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Emne: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments > > > > In my experience, most residential customers are quite happy to use > private > > IP addresses > > I must respectively disagree, and disagree vehemently. In my experiences, > residential broadband customers, paying high monthly fees, demand publicly > routable IP address space, citing both the very 'limitations' of private > address space you articulate (e.g. Napster and other IP-dependent > applications) [Bjarne Carlsen] This can easily be made with NAT or IP-masquerading. IME the average residential user does not give a hoot whether his address space is publicly routable or not, as long as he can run Napster or AGSatellite from all of his network, he is much more interested in IP-ports than in IP-addresses, since many providers block most IP-ports from their local network. > and sales pitches of other providers who are willing to give > them publicly unique address space just to close the deal. [Bjarne Carlsen] See answer to last para below. > > > For those customers requiring real IP addressing, I find that many of > these > > are businesses. As such, it is very limiting to leave them with a /29 > > We are not discussing commercial broadband customers. The fixed-boundary > assignment 'proposal' is exclusively for residential broadband customers. > > > My main object is with assignment based on usage requirements . I know > > people who run offices with dozens of people of a dual channel ISDN > line. > > Does this make them less worthy of IP addreses that a single home user > with > > a 3Mb DSL line? > > IP requirements for commercial customers are based on traditional address > policies - as such, organizations can obtain as much address space as they > require based on justification. No one is ever denied address space which > they can justify, right? [Bjarne Carlsen] Exactly - then why not let the users justify their actual needs instead of wasting up to 66% of the address space (this includes never-used IP's)? > > I know that IP conservation is now more important than ever, but > > surely this could be policed better by promoting the use of private IP > > addressing, rather than by restricting users who cannot afford to buy > > more bandwidth. > > Those who use private addressing schemes should certainly feel good about > themselves, but no one is being restricted. If you can justify address > space per the published criteria, you get it. > > More importantly, the conservationist's desire to promote the use of > private address space should not take precedence over real-world business > concerns. [Bjarne Carlsen] Maybe not, but the real-world business is trying to oversell a limited commodity. > Market demand for residential DSL is high, and in many markets, > IPs have become a selling point. By allowing fixed-boundary assignments, > RIPE effectively removes that facet of competition, equalling and opening > the playing field to all and reducing IP waste in the long-term. [Bjarne Carlsen] No way! RIPE will effectively remove that facet of competition by _enforcing_ the rules as they are today - not by wasting address space on the proposed /29-scheme. > /david > /Bjarne

1 0

Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
by Denesh Bhabuta 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

At 15:34 07/02/2001, leo vegoda wrote: >In my presentation to the Working Group at RIPE 38 [0] I brought up the >issue of assignment policies for ISPs wanting to assign all customers a >fixed size network (/29). Please let me thank you for that presentation.. it was very good and showed RIPE being aware of the issue that will potentially explode in the coming months. >Based on the above, we would like the Working Group to consider whether: > - a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential > broadband connections? >Or > - should the requester (the LIR) be required to ask the subscriber how > many IP devices will be connected and base the assignment upon this? I believe that both should be done depending on the end customer scenario. What is certain is that a lot of LIRs, mainly the new ones - telcos with (or trying to market) IP services are currently on the Broadband bandwaggon.. in todays marketing language this translates as xDSL and whether it is right to consider this as a broadband solution or not is a matter for another discussion.. ;-) What needs to be considered first is the industry and what the 'big' guys are doing... and how this affects what the smaller companies and the start-ups offer. This is what I see happening right now... as an example: Large European Telco 'Alman Telecom' sells it's DSL product very well. The marketing of the product spec actually mentions that the customer will be getting 16 IP addresses. Customers know the Alman brand, and they see what it offers and hence they go for it. As a side note, RIPE need to be aware that telcos are mentioning right now how many IPs are given in a product, and do not mention RIPE anywhere in the contract or make the customer aware that there is that RIPE obligation. Small Startup Telco 'LastChoice Telecommunications' offers the same product, but is new in the market. It has to compete for market share and has to offer something better than Alman. One way of doing this... and remember product managers are not always IP literate, is to offer more IP addresses. This strategy is also fine by the marketing director and every other director in the organisation - as they are not concerned about RIPE... to them, they have paid RIPE and they have the IP addresses (note that AFAICS, a lot of the new LIRs are telcos with non-IP people or people who are not experienced with RIPE - and I really believe that RIPE need to acknowledge this). Today, number of IP addresses given to a customer *are* used as a market share gaining tool. So, IMHO, the main issue is to look at the industry itself and look at how the big players are acting first, and to bring them in line. Further on from this, we need to look at how DSL is being rolled out and how the telcos want to sell the product. A lot of the telcos I talk to want to be doing a minimum of 100 xDSL sales per day! Under traditional techniques, this would require each telco to have a large number of hostmasters/people to deal with 141 forms in an efficient manner... telcos do not want to spend money on getting more people.. So what do they do instead? Either 141 forms do not get filled or 'standard' RIPE forms are filled in, and/or the quality of the data in a 141 form falls. In addition, RIPEs auditing activities become more resource hungry. My proposal would be a change in policy, incorporating the points that Leo has raised, such that: 1) Standard 141 forms / standard details are allowed for xDSL assignments. These standard forms should allow an automatic assignment to the end customer of 4 IP addresses (instead of 8 as suggested by Leo. This can cover both residential and business customers. After all, ISPs should push NAT in the main ;) 2) For those customers who require that bit more, they can go through the standard 'what we have come to love' RIPE-141 procedure. :-) So the best of both worlds.. standard set up customers throughout Europe - RIPE knows what is happening and most ISPs/Telcos can be happier where they can spend more time earning their money.. and for anything else, the standard RIPE procedures are followed. ISPs/Telcos should be kept to this policy and they should be discouraged from advertising 'x number of IP addresses' with their products... Oh, and those ISPs that push NATd xDSL with 1 static IP for the customer.. maybe a pat on their back. ;-) Regards Denesh -- Denesh Bhabuta Chairman, CEO and Principal Consultant Cyberstrider Limited www.cyberstrider.net Internet and E-Commerce: Strategy, Consultancy and Solutions

2 1

A Question
by SAEED KHADEMI 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

[ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] Hello, Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for this kind of questions. I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to know about any defined regulation in this regard. The Question: Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new IP assignment? This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!! Any comment? Kind Regards, IPM LOCAL REGISTRY, Tehran/Iran Saeed.

4 3

RE: A Question
by SAEED KHADEMI 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

>As far as I know, there are two feasible cases: > >1. The customer MOVES from one ISP to another >2. The customer connects to ANOTHER ISP, while using the other ISP Hi, Many Thanks for all comments. The case I meant was exactly the 2nd one. Customer has an old connectivity to LIR-1 and have got a new connection from LIR-2. >2 is usually performed either by the use of BGP or by the use of static >asymmetric routing, or RADWare's LinkProof. That's the case. >In the 2nd case, the reason here is usually high availability and/or load >balancing between links/ISPs. In this situation, the customer NEEDS both the >assignments. In this case, what should people at LIR-1 Do? Can they ask LIR-2 people to stop forcing customers? And if the answer is positive, What's the rule, if LIR-2 people continue to behave like that? >I believe that 'legal', a LIR cannot just 'demand' that a customer would >return their previously-assigned IPs unless there's a reason (i.e., the >situation is case #1). It might be that that specific LIR is having problems >with its AW (let's say their AW is 256 ips, and the customer already has >IPs, it might be that the 'new' LIR needs to send a RIPE-141 to RIPE - and >they might be too lazy to do that). I agree. Another possiblity is that LIR-2's people are trying to fulfill their own test period ( according to RIPE NCC slow starting ) and somehow attack to LIR-1 reputation. Kind Regards, IPM LOCAL REGISTRY, Tehran-Iran Saeed.

1 0

RE: A Question
by Yuval Shchory 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

As far as I know, there are two feasible cases: 1. The customer MOVES from one ISP to another 2. The customer connects to ANOTHER ISP, while using the other ISP 2 is usually performed either by the use of BGP or by the use of static asymmetric routing, or RADWare's LinkProof. In the 1st case, there's no reason to continue the assignment, the customer is holding addresses which they cannot use. Period. In 99.9% of the cases a customer receives a fraction of a larger aggregate, and there's no reason/possibility that the new ISP will be able to route that fraction via BGP to the world. This means - no packets would arrive to that customer (with destination IP of the old IPs), which leads us to the conclusion that the assignment should be returned. In the 2nd case, the reason here is usually high availability and/or load balancing between links/ISPs. In this situation, the customer NEEDS both the assignments. I believe that 'legal', a LIR cannot just 'demand' that a customer would return their previously-assigned IPs unless there's a reason (i.e., the situation is case #1). It might be that that specific LIR is having problems with its AW (let's say their AW is 256 ips, and the customer already has IPs, it might be that the 'new' LIR needs to send a RIPE-141 to RIPE - and they might be too lazy to do that). Just my $0.0000000000002 Regards, --- Yuval Shchory Manager Security Group NetVision Ltd. interFax: +972-3-5480255 -----Original Message----- From: Andre Koopal [mailto:andre@NL.UU.NET] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 11:45 AM To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: A Question On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:58:47AM +0330, SAEED KHADEMI wrote: > [ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] > > > Hello, > Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for > this kind of questions. > I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of > people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to > know about any defined regulation in this regard. > The Question: > > Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to > return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new > IP assignment? > This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments > from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people > at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO > return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!! > > Any comment? > Some thoughts on this from me, not neccesarely the truth. As LIR they can say that if you don't return space, you have to much space, so the request isn't justified. If the customer can proof he has the need for both chunks of space ... As an ISP you can (and should) refuse the customer to route his ip-space from his old provider. Both together mean that in the ordinary case of a customer migrating from one ISP to another they can force the customer to return his old space. Regards, Andre

1 0

RE: A Question
by Marian Kruydenhof 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Hello Saeed, To my knowledge it is possible for a customer to have assignments from 2 LIR's. if the customer is requesting ip space from LIR2, LIR2 should make sure that the customer will not use the ip space for the same purpose as the ip space from LIR1. for example, the customer can not address a host with ip space from both LIR1 and LIR2. How the customer will use the address space is specified in the addressingplan template. You should take this into account when evaluating the addressingplan template. What you describe below is not our policy. regards Marian Kruydenhof KPN Telecom, Netherlands -----Original Message----- From: SAEED KHADEMI [SMTP:saeed@vax.ipm.ac.ir] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:29 AM To: local-ir(a)ripe.net Subject: A Question [ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] Hello, Dear coleagues, Please excuse me if this is not the right place for this kind of questions. I am working as a LIR hostmaster since 5 years ago. Due to the act of people of another LIR, a question has rised in my mind. And I want to know about any defined regulation in this regard. The Question: Is it legal that technical persons of one LIR, ask their customer to return other LIR assignments, because the customer has asked for new IP assignment? This has been accured many times. Customer having some IP assignments from LIR-1, are applying for new IP assignments from LIR-2. But people at LIR-2 are saying that if you want new IP assignments, you HAVE TO return LIR-1 assignments !!!!!!! Any comment? Kind Regards, IPM LOCAL REGISTRY, Tehran/Iran Saeed.

1 0