Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
James, 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?! 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....
"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 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....
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...
And when you explain this to RIPE, how do they respond? If you can make a bona fide engineering argument for obtaining more than one sub-TLA, it seems to me that any RIR is obliged to seriously consider that argument. /david
David R Huberman wrote:
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 i s split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their ow n routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable routing...
And when you explain this to RIPE, how do they respond? If you can make a bona fide engineering argument for obtaining more than one sub-TLA, it seems to me that any RIR is obliged to seriously consider that argument.
The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue more address space." So we can have a /35 fragmented among something like 20 different networks but can't get any additional address space until 80% of the current /35 is used. 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
The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue more address space."
Please forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask, "where is it written that Supernational Registries may not receive multiple sub-TLAs?" Is this a RIPE NCC interpretation of the bootstrap criteria or is it actually written down somewhere? /david
David R Huberman wrote:
The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue mo
re
address space."
Please forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask, "where is it written that Supernational Registries may not receive multiple sub-TLAs?"
Is this a RIPE NCC interpretation of the bootstrap criteria or is it actually written down somewhere?
As far as I can see from a quick scan of rfc2928, it refers to "registries" only in terms of the RIRs and not as local IRs or other customers of the RIRs. Thus, I can only assume that restriction is the RIPE NCCs interpretation of the criteria. I intend to raise this issue at the LIR WG (which I co-chair) at RIPE40 in Prague in October. Any clarification from RIPE NCC staff prior to RIPE40 would be appreciated. James
James schrieb:
Now, in the IPv6 world I'm told that we can't get an IPv6 sTLA for our
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...
Actually, you have a /34, haven't you? EU-EUNET-20000403 and DE-XLINK-20000510. Very interesting that KQDE got an assignment as at that time they already where 100% KQ. -- Arnold
"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....
Hi, On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:36:15AM +0100, Stephen Burley wrote:
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.
As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, one thing that was voiced repeatedly was "if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself is not enough" (considering hierarchical strutures - either due to multinational networks, or due to hierarchies of resellers having re-selling customers themselves - 13 bits to work in is just not enough). Also, it hasn't really been shown why we need slow-start *in slow-start space*(!). It's not like we want our own TLA, but I think the RIRs are being way too conservative. Old IPv4 habits...? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hiya Folks, I would like to confirm what Gert wrote. Myself and *many* others stated 13 bits is not enough. There was definitely concensus on this point. There were other comments about "H-ratio's" and why only 13 bits for a Global ISP when a single user gets 80 bits and the RIR's 35. Other comments about Old IPv4 habits were also made. A separate issue of avoiding non-4 bit boundaries was also made. Even ripe is affected here since TWO reverse domain delegations are needed for each current sub-TLA. As a result, various persons (Randy,and I think Mirjam or Nurani) said the TLA issues were going to be re-worked, and that RFC2928 would be made obselete. This is essential in my view. However, either nothing is happening, or it is all happening behind closed doors both of which are wrong in my opinion. Cheers Dave (normally djp@djp.net but posting might be faster from this subscribed address) On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Gert Doering wrote: ->Hi, -> ->As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, ->one thing that was voiced repeatedly was -> -> "if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself -> is not enough" -> ->(considering hierarchical strutures - either due to multinational ->networks, or due to hierarchies of resellers having re-selling customers ->themselves - 13 bits to work in is just not enough). -> ->Also, it hasn't really been shown why we need slow-start *in slow-start ->space*(!). It's not like we want our own TLA, but I think the RIRs are ->being way too conservative. Old IPv4 habits...? -> ->Gert Doering -> -- NetMaster
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:18:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, one thing that was voiced repeatedly was
"if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself is not enough"
For your information: We are currently planning a joint session for ipv6 allocation policy issues for the next RIPE meeting. It would be really nice if we can get volunteers from the community who can give a brief presentation on possible solutions. The problem description is pretty clear by now, however, I have not seen any (public) proposals yet on how to solve it. Obviously, there are multiple ways to deal with the issue and it would be nice to discuss advantages and disadvantages of different solutions. David K. ---
During the January meeting in Amsterdam we had presentions from Bernard Tuy (Renater), and from Stuart Prevost (BT), and first consensus on this issue. During the April meeting in Bologna, a very comprehensive document, with the problem description and with clear proposals was presented by Nial Murphy, and again converging views were expressed. See Nial Murphy presentation : http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/20010101-20010401/msg00035.ht... http://www.enigma.ie/articles/global-ipv6-alteration.html ETNO expressed supports to Nial's proposals and introduced a common ETNO position on this issue (See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/20010401-20010701/msg00016.ht... http://www.etno.belbone.be/site/positions.htm) Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need a new Draft from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ? Alain Bidron. David Kessens a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:18:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, one thing that was voiced repeatedly was
"if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself is not enough"
For your information:
We are currently planning a joint session for ipv6 allocation policy issues for the next RIPE meeting.
It would be really nice if we can get volunteers from the community who can give a brief presentation on possible solutions. The problem description is pretty clear by now, however, I have not seen any (public) proposals yet on how to solve it. Obviously, there are multiple ways to deal with the issue and it would be nice to discuss advantages and disadvantages of different solutions.
David K. ---
Alain, On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:45:24PM +0200, BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP wrote:
Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need a new Draft from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ?
I think that the problem description is quite clear. I think that it is also clear that a majority of the people would like to have a larger initial allocation. However, it is not clear how big such an allocation should be, whether there should be a uniform size of the initial allocation, whether multi-national registries should be able to get more than one allocation etc. Next, we will also need to take a look at the definition of 80% utilization, when people can come back to the regional registries for more address space and how much address space they will get when they come back and qualify for more address space. It's up to us as the RIPE community to identify these issues and to advise the RIPE NCC on how to fix the current policy. So far, we have done quite a good job in identifying the issues, it's now time to go in more detail in order to define a workable allocation policy. David K. ---
Hiya all, There were also many concrete proposals in my mail of 8.2.2001 to these lists and available for browsing at: http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html for those who do not wish to access the mail archives. It's time this and the other proposals, which are all approximately in agreement, were put into a revised allocation policy. We already have 166 routes in the IPv6 routing table. The sooner we adopt the revised allocation policy the less likely it is the wrongly sized routes will need to hang around for ever - Cisco memory is very expensive - IPv6 addresses are plentiful. Cheers Dave On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP wrote: ->During the January meeting in Amsterdam we had presentions from Bernard ->Tuy (Renater), and from Stuart Prevost (BT), and first consensus on this ->issue. -> ->During the April meeting in Bologna, a very comprehensive document, ->with the problem description and with clear proposals was presented by ->Nial Murphy, and ->again converging views were expressed. -> ->See Nial Murphy presentation : ->http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/20010101-20010401/msg00035.ht... ->http://www.enigma.ie/articles/global-ipv6-alteration.html -> ->ETNO expressed supports to Nial's proposals and introduced a common ->ETNO position ->on this issue ->(See: ->http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/20010401-20010701/msg00016.ht... ->http://www.etno.belbone.be/site/positions.htm) -> ->Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need a new Draft ->from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus ->expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ? -> ->Alain Bidron. -> ->David Kessens a écrit : ->> ->> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:18:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: ->> > ->> > As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, ->> > one thing that was voiced repeatedly was ->> > ->> > "if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself ->> > is not enough" ->> ->> For your information: ->> ->> We are currently planning a joint session for ipv6 allocation policy ->> issues for the next RIPE meeting. ->> ->> It would be really nice if we can get volunteers from the community ->> who can give a brief presentation on possible solutions. The problem ->> description is pretty clear by now, however, I have not seen any ->> (public) proposals yet on how to solve it. Obviously, there are ->> multiple ways to deal with the issue and it would be nice to discuss ->> advantages and disadvantages of different solutions. ->> ->> David K. ->> ---
In your previous mail you wrote: Also, it hasn't really been shown why we need slow-start *in slow-start space*(!). It's not like we want our own TLA, but I think the RIRs are being way too conservative. Old IPv4 habits...? => protection of a business... (if this is not the case someone can believe this). Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
Hi, On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:52:00PM +0200, Francis Dupont wrote:
Also, it hasn't really been shown why we need slow-start *in slow-start space*(!). It's not like we want our own TLA, but I think the RIRs are being way too conservative. Old IPv4 habits...?
=> protection of a business... (if this is not the case someone can believe this).
There are rumors to that extent, yep. But it's unlikely that IPv4 requests will stop so suddenly that RIPE hostmasters will all lose their jobs... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (10)
-
BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP -
Dave Pratt -
David Kessens -
David R Huberman -
Francis Dupont -
Gert Doering -
James Aldridge -
Nipper, Arnold -
Stephen Burley -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet