"Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" wrote:
I think we were talking about increasing the size of a sTLA (when the requirement for that can be documented), rather than allocating another sTLA?!
OK, my last mail was maybe a bit terse. Some background might help.
We (KPNQwest, formerly EUnet) are a "supernational" registry. In the IPv4 world this is much like having 6 individual large registries with the corresponding number of open allocations that implies.
Now, in the IPv6 world I'm told that we can't get an IPv6 sTLA for our
I would like to add although we are not a supernational registry and all that implies ;) we have the same issue. We have been allocated our start up space in IPv6 which is fine for now but would it not be better to be more forward thinking when allocating IPv6 space and allocate enough space to aggregate fully throughout the EMEA region and so implement the best possible aggregation. This is not just a cry for more space because we are big so we deserve it, we are seriously looking to a time when IPv6 is used in anger and we have to do real aggregation throughout EMEA. We do not want to assign IPv6 on a per LIR basis, rather sub-allocate IPv6 space to our current LIR structure since we are all in the same network it makes sense. BTW we are currently writing our internal IPv6 deployment policy. Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Aldridge" <jhma@KPNQwest.net> To: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> Cc: <lir-wg@ripe.net>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:49 PM Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made direct
backbone customers or for any of our other national networks because KPNQwest Finland (covered by the eu.eunet supernational registry) already has our one sub-TLA.
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 is split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their own routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable routing...
James
Also, I seem to remember that the NCC reserves some space in the address tree for that, so you might be able to obtain a "2nd" sTLA back-to-back with the original one, which is equivalent to decreasing the prefix length.
I guess you would be free to structure that (combined/extended) address space internally (for distribution to customers by more than one operational unit).
But probably I am missing something essential here.
Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________
Of course, there would be at least one more sub-TLA allocated if the IPv4 rules for supernational registries were to be applied to IPv6 instead of restricting these to only having a single sub-TLA allocation... :-(
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
_________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First things first, but not necessarily in that order....