IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting)
Hiya Folks, I would like to elaborate on a comment made at the end of the LIR/IPv6 session in Prague about the ability of IPv6 address space requesters to forecast their address requirements. These suggestions probably might not make it into the provisional policy, but should be considered for later policy. A large ISP, probably global, and certainly national, could build its entire infrastructure with a single /48 network block. For example this would allow 256 "locations", each with 256 networks, each with more hosts than ants on this planet.... With the popular /127 for point-point connections even customer lines can be accomodated. Accordingly, the only driver for longer prefixes would seem to be the /48 customer networks. How will applicants for IPv6 address allocations quantify these networks ? The only way I can see is from very early marketing forcasts. In the past RIPE have viewed marketing forecasts with a lot of suspicion (quite rightly). However, unless RIPE issue a "one size fits all" prefix they may have to base allocations on these marketing forecasts. One thing however can be relatively easily determined, and that is "whether an applicant has ANY customers". For those LIR WITHOUT any customers, we could allocate a /48 and even large multinational corporations would have plenty of addresses (see second paragraph above again). For those LIR WITH customers, we should be much more generous because we cannot accurately judge needs from marketing forecasts. Assuming a HD ratio of 0.8, then a moderately successful city carrier LIR with 100,000 DSL or Cable customers (each requiring a /48) will qualify for more than a /28 allocation. Do we want such LIRs to come back and ask for a second route (in the global routing table) ? Conclusion: 1. We should consider allocating a /48 to LIR without any customers as this is plenty. 2. Even a /28 would result in considerable numbers of followup requests if cable/DSL customers (mass users) get /48. Opinions, Comments, Concensus ? Cheers Dave
Hiya all, Have I missed something or are we still waiting for this ? Is there a hold up ? It would be good to get this going as soon as possible. Can RIPE set up such a list at ipv6-global-policy@ripe.net ? Cheers Dave BT Ignite GmbH
Hi, I fully support the idea. However, it is not important, where the @ is. (@ripe.net, @apnic.net ...) Best, Geza On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Dave Pratt wrote:
Hiya all,
Have I missed something or are we still waiting for this ? Is there a hold up ? It would be good to get this going as soon as possible.
Can RIPE set up such a list at ipv6-global-policy@ripe.net ?
Cheers Dave BT Ignite GmbH
Dave and all, Untill now I postponed my comments, waiting for the global mailing list. However, as there is still no mailing list, I would like to make some comments now. The firs lesson what I learned from the IPv4 address allocation history, that allocating addresses for ever has good consequences for early adopters and bad consequences for the late adopters. Early adopter should have some benefit, however, colonialisation of the address space should be avoided. The IPv6 address space is not as big as it seems to be, as the limiting effects of the multihoming, renumbering and aggregation are not clear yet. Therefore I suggest to introduce sliding allocation time window (ATW). The size of the ATW can be fine tuned by future policies, however, this could never reduce the already allocated address space allocation time, however, might increase it. For example, the ATW can be set initially for 10 year. Any ISP (LIR) will receive its address block for 3ATW, and any customer of the LIR will receive its address block for ATW. When the ATW expire, It should be checked, that the old policy is still valid. If yes, tha allocation can be extended for an other ATW period of time. If not, the customer will receive a now address block according to the new policy, and with the customer should renumber its network within the new ATW period of time and give back the old address space. When all customer of a LIR should have already migrated to the new address block, then the LIR should give back its address block, and this can be reused later on by others, according to the new policy. In this long enough allocation policy we can run the network minimize burocracy save the future Best, Geza
APNIC has established the global list. Hopefully you will see an announcement from RIPE NCC shortly. Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ipv6-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-ipv6-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Turchanyi Geza Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:37 AM To: Dave Pratt Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net; ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting)
Dave and all,
Untill now I postponed my comments, waiting for the global mailing list. However, as there is still no mailing list, I would like to make some comments now.
The firs lesson what I learned from the IPv4 address allocation history, that allocating addresses for ever has good consequences for early adopters and bad consequences for the late adopters.
Early adopter should have some benefit, however, colonialisation of the address space should be avoided.
The IPv6 address space is not as big as it seems to be, as the limiting effects of the multihoming, renumbering and aggregation are not clear yet.
Therefore I suggest to introduce sliding allocation time window (ATW). The size of the ATW can be fine tuned by future policies, however, this could never reduce the already allocated address space allocation time, however, might increase it.
For example, the ATW can be set initially for 10 year. Any ISP (LIR) will receive its address block for 3ATW, and any customer of the LIR will receive its address block for ATW.
When the ATW expire, It should be checked, that the old policy is still valid. If yes, tha allocation can be extended for an other ATW period of time. If not, the customer will receive a now address block according to the new policy, and with the customer should renumber its network within the new ATW period of time and give back the old address space.
When all customer of a LIR should have already migrated to the new address block, then the LIR should give back its address block, and this can be reused later on by others, according to the new policy.
In this long enough allocation policy we can run the network minimize burocracy save the future
Best,
Geza
This went out to apnic-announce earlier today... philip -- ------------------------------------------------ * GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT OF REVISED IPv6 ADDRESS POLICY A new mailing list has been established to co-ordinate global policy discussions on the development of a revised IPv6 addressing policy to replace the "Provisional IPv6 assignment and allocation policy document". The list name is <global-v6@lists.apnic.net>. Although this list is hosted by APNIC, it is open to all members of the global Internet community with an interest in IPv6 address policy. Subscription information is available at: http://www.apnic.net/net_comm/lists/ Archives of discussions are available at: http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6 -------------- APNIC encourages all interested parties to subscribe to these lists and contribute to the development of important global address policy. Kind regards, Anne Lord __________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat <secretariat@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3367 0490/82 * APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC * * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request@apnic.net * At 15:56 17/10/2001 -0400, Ray Plzak wrote:
APNIC has established the global list. Hopefully you will see an announcement from RIPE NCC shortly.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ipv6-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-ipv6-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Turchanyi Geza Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:37 AM To: Dave Pratt Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net; ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting)
Dave and all,
Untill now I postponed my comments, waiting for the global mailing list. However, as there is still no mailing list, I would like to make some comments now.
The firs lesson what I learned from the IPv4 address allocation history, that allocating addresses for ever has good consequences for early adopters and bad consequences for the late adopters.
Early adopter should have some benefit, however, colonialisation of the address space should be avoided.
The IPv6 address space is not as big as it seems to be, as the limiting effects of the multihoming, renumbering and aggregation are not clear yet.
Therefore I suggest to introduce sliding allocation time window (ATW). The size of the ATW can be fine tuned by future policies, however, this could never reduce the already allocated address space allocation time, however, might increase it.
For example, the ATW can be set initially for 10 year. Any ISP (LIR) will receive its address block for 3ATW, and any customer of the LIR will receive its address block for ATW.
When the ATW expire, It should be checked, that the old policy is still valid. If yes, tha allocation can be extended for an other ATW period of time. If not, the customer will receive a now address block according to the new policy, and with the customer should renumber its network within the new ATW period of time and give back the old address space.
When all customer of a LIR should have already migrated to the new address block, then the LIR should give back its address block, and this can be reused later on by others, according to the new policy.
In this long enough allocation policy we can run the network minimize burocracy save the future
Best,
Geza
participants (4)
-
Dave Pratt -
Philip Smith -
Ray Plzak -
Turchanyi Geza