Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators
[Note: <lir-wg@ripe.net> cc'd as this relates to policy] Andreas, On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:31:06PM +0100, Andreas.Schmid1@swisscom.com wrote: Re: RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators [...]
RFC3314 says on page 14: "Because multiple IPv6 hosts may attach through a 3GPP handset, the IPv6 WG recommends that one or more /64 prefixes should be assigned to each primary PDP context."
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> Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
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
Mobile operators participated in IPv6 policy development to ensure requirements were met. As was pointed out the RIPE NCC has made an IPv6 allocation to a mobile-service provider, and they were able to meet the current policy's criteria. If others feel the policy needs clarification, we encourage the community to continue discussing this issue of the current policy and how it would apply to a mobile-only operator using Gert Doering's proposal as a starting point. I suggest to limit this discussion to the LIR-WG list. Kind regards, Sabrina Wilmot -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina@ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
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
At 05:39 PM 14-11-02 +0100, Sabrina Wilmot wrote: 5.1.1 is a problem for me. To quote: a) be an LIR; b) not be an end site; c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s, 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. I am an NREN comprising 8 universities. Not an ISP. How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 for research purposes that can be used for multihoming? Thanks, Hank
Mobile operators participated in IPv6 policy development to ensure requirements were met. As was pointed out the RIPE NCC has made an IPv6 allocation to a mobile-service provider, and they were able to meet the current policy's criteria.
If others feel the policy needs clarification, we encourage the community to continue discussing this issue of the current policy and how it would apply to a mobile-only operator using Gert Doering's proposal as a starting point.
I suggest to limit this discussion to the LIR-WG list.
Kind regards,
Sabrina Wilmot --
o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina@ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
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
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:43:05PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 05:39 PM 14-11-02 +0100, Sabrina Wilmot wrote:
d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years.
I am an NREN comprising 8 universities. Not an ISP. How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 for research purposes that can be used for multihoming?
The "rules" are clearly shot as far as NRENs go, but having said that the bulk of the European NRENs now have SubTLA space, so one deduces that RIPE is sympathetic to their situation when making assignments. After all, there are only so many - some 30 or so - NRENs to give SubTLAs to. Regarding second prefixes for multihoming, there is a GEANT testbed for NRENs to which ~10 NRENs are attached at the moment. We are also reusing AS8933 and the GTPv6 6bone prefix to offer /34's to interested NRENs (we are also using this for things such as IPv6 Multicast). A Hitachi GR2000 in the UK and a Juniper M5 in Paris are being used for this. Expect a new push in work there after IETF week. Tim
From: "Hank Nussbacher" <hank@att.net.il> How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 ? ====== IN-ADDR.IL ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 5:232 EASY 5:233 IL (ISRAEL) 5:234 KE (KENYA) 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("SNOOPY") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt IPv8 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] IPv16 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] 1WWWWWWWSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Nussbacher" <hank@att.net.il> To: "Sabrina Wilmot" <sabrina@ripe.net>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators
At 05:39 PM 14-11-02 +0100, Sabrina Wilmot wrote:
5.1.1 is a problem for me. To quote: a) be an LIR; b) not be an end site; c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s, 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.
I am an NREN comprising 8 universities. Not an ISP. How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 for research purposes that can be used for multihoming?
Thanks, Hank
Mobile operators participated in IPv6 policy development to ensure requirements were met. As was pointed out the RIPE NCC has made an IPv6 allocation to a mobile-service provider, and they were able to meet the current policy's criteria.
If others feel the policy needs clarification, we encourage the community to continue discussing this issue of the current policy and how it would apply to a mobile-only operator using Gert Doering's proposal as a starting point.
I suggest to limit this discussion to the LIR-WG list.
Kind regards,
Sabrina Wilmot --
o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot sabrina@ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
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
participants (6)
-
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jim Fleming -
leo vegoda -
Sabrina Wilmot -
Tim Chown