Hi, On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: [..]
But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing connectivity to organisations with a /48. -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy!
The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May.
An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need to meet all four requirements specified in the policy.
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#initial_criteria>
This comment is not too helpful. Of course those are the rules :-) The problem I see is that the policy explicitely specifies "assigns /48s", which is what "we" assumed to be the generic case for the ISP -> customer relation. On the other hand, RIPE-246 explicitly specifies the use of smaller prefixes for special cases: --------------- quote ---------------- 5.4.1. Assignment address space size Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing guidelines [RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as: * /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design * /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting. RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, --------------- quote ---------------- Looking at the number of potential IPv6 customers of a mobile network operator, assigning each of them a /48 does't make much sense. On the other hand, even when assigning each end customer a /64, and aggregating at cell boundaries (for example), the mobile network is likely to make better usage of the IPv6 space than many smaller ISPs that do match the letter of the "200 /48" rule. I, personally, think that a mobile network operator really should be able to get an IPv6 allocation - if not them, who else? And I also see that at least one of them already has one (DE-D2VODAFONE, 2001:0928::/32). So I think a clarification is needed - maybe the wording of the policy document has to be changed to make very explicit that this is acceptable usage, something like this: -------------- proposal ------------ c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s or /64s according to 5.4.1, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years, or plan to assign "enough" (to be defined) /64s to be equivalent to 200 /48s. -------------- proposal ------------ one could apply HD ratio to the /64s inside the /48s, like "it's valid if <hd-ratio>% /64s out of a /40 are assigned", a /40 being "about 200 /48s". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299