IPv6 assignments to RIPE itself
Hello, RIPE uses addresses which are unassigned:
host -t aaaa ns.ripe.net. ns.ripe.net IPv6 address 2001:610:240:0:193::193
whois 2001:610:240:0:193::193 inet6num: 2001:0610:0240::/42 netname: RIPE-NCC-IPv6 descr: RIPE NCC status: ALLOCATED-BY-LIR
In my understanding, this is not an allowed usage sice RIPE must assign a /48 to themselves before the use the address space. However, I rose this issue with them, and they claim there is not need for this. Could someone please explain to me where my understanding of the allocation and assignment rules is flawed? Thank you, Robert
Hi, On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 08:05:38PM +0000, Robert Kiessling wrote:
RIPE uses addresses which are unassigned:
host -t aaaa ns.ripe.net. ns.ripe.net IPv6 address 2001:610:240:0:193::193
whois 2001:610:240:0:193::193 inet6num: 2001:0610:0240::/42 netname: RIPE-NCC-IPv6 descr: RIPE NCC status: ALLOCATED-BY-LIR
In my understanding, this is not an allowed usage sice RIPE must assign a /48 to themselves before the use the address space.
However, I rose this issue with them, and they claim there is not need for this.
Could someone please explain to me where my understanding of the allocation and assignment rules is flawed?
I tend to agree with you. The /42 has been sub-allocated from Surfnet to the RIPE NCC (the NCC being "Just any Surfnet customer" here, not acting in their function as RIR). Out of that /42, the NCC is using a /48 for "NCC network", and further /48s for "employee home networks". [Personally, I see this as wastive, but I've mentioned before that "/48 per site" is a stupid rule in the context of "employee networks" and "student homes", as it means most companies will then want more than a /48, which is NOT what was intended. But that's a separate discussion]. Following the basic principles of "conservation, aggregation, documentation", I think the usage of the individual /48s inside the /42 really should be documented. On the other hand, the guidelines are not really clear. After all, it's *Surfnet* who has to document what they do inside their /32, and they *have* documented that this /42 is used by the RIPE NCC. Tricky. And setting interesting (and important) precedence. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55593 (55180) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:12:27 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
I tend to agree with you. The /42 has been sub-allocated from Surfnet to the RIPE NCC (the NCC being "Just any Surfnet customer" here, not acting in their function as RIR).
But RIPE NCC as RIR did approve it according to 5.4.2 of ripe-246. How many hats does RIPE NCC have in this case :-) rvdp
Hi Ronald, Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org> writes
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:12:27 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
I tend to agree with you. The /42 has been sub-allocated from Surfnet to the RIPE NCC (the NCC being "Just any Surfnet customer" here, not acting in their function as RIR).
But RIPE NCC as RIR did approve it according to 5.4.2 of ripe-246. How many hats does RIPE NCC have in this case :-)
This is not the case. Each assignment has been made to a separate organisation. There is a single assignment for the RIPE NCC. There is a separate assignment for the RIPE meeting. RIPE is not the same as the RIPE NCC. Similarly, assignments made to employees' home networks are to separate End Users and not the RIPE NCC. Each assignment within the allocation is to a separate End Site. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 12:37:24 +0100, leo vegoda wrote:
Hi Ronald,
Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org> writes
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:12:27 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
I tend to agree with you. The /42 has been sub-allocated from Surfnet to the RIPE NCC (the NCC being "Just any Surfnet customer" here, not acting in their function as RIR).
But RIPE NCC as RIR did approve it according to 5.4.2 of ripe-246. How many hats does RIPE NCC have in this case :-)
This is not the case. Each assignment has been made to a separate organisation. There is a single assignment for the RIPE NCC. There is a separate assignment for the RIPE meeting. RIPE is not the same as the RIPE NCC.
Similarly, assignments made to employees' home networks are to separate End Users and not the RIPE NCC.
Each assignment within the allocation is to a separate End Site.
This all happened when I already left surfnet. So I don't know the details. But this sounds strange. Are you saying surfnet assigned /48s directly to RIPE NCC employees? I suppose surfnet dealt with one customer, RIPE NCC, and assigned several /48s to it. BTW, I agree RIPE* is special. I can understand the need for separate /48s for the RIPE NCC office and the RIPE meetings. However, I would expect RIPE NCC employees to get /64s from the RIPE NCC /48 or get a /48 from their home ISP. rvdp
Hi, On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
BTW, I agree RIPE* is special. I can understand the need for separate /48s for the RIPE NCC office and the RIPE meetings.
Why? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55593 (55180) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 14:11:14 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
BTW, I agree RIPE* is special. I can understand the need for separate /48s for the RIPE NCC office and the RIPE meetings.
Why?
As Leo already explained: RIPE != RIPE NCC. I see the usefulness of a /48 that travels along with the RIPE meetings. As far as I know, this /48 always has the same upstream (the RIPE _NCC_ office) by means of a v6-in-v4 tunnel. When native v6 connectivity will be widely available at meeting sites, this might change. rvdp
Hi, On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:21:54PM +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 14:11:14 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
BTW, I agree RIPE* is special. I can understand the need for separate /48s for the RIPE NCC office and the RIPE meetings.
Why?
As Leo already explained: RIPE != RIPE NCC. I see the usefulness of a /48 that travels along with the RIPE meetings. As far as I know, this /48 always has the same upstream (the RIPE _NCC_ office) by means of a v6-in-v4 tunnel.
And exactly this is the reason why I don't see the need for a second /48. The only network connectivity of the meeting network is through the RIPE NCC office, which will be the aggregation point for all internal subnetworks, and everything connected through it. As long as we do not use something like a /50 on the RIPE meetings (but more like "one /64"), and there is no native connectivity available locally, I see no compelling reason to go for a separate /48.
When native v6 connectivity will be widely available at meeting sites, this might change.
Indeed, because in those cases, there's even less reason for a statically allocated /48 for "RIPE meeting" - the meeting network should use upstream space. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55593 (55180) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi Ronald, Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org> writes [...]
This all happened when I already left surfnet. So I don't know the details. But this sounds strange. Are you saying surfnet assigned /48s directly to RIPE NCC employees? I suppose surfnet dealt with one customer, RIPE NCC, and assigned several /48s to it.
No, the RIPE NCC received an allocation from Surfnet, as per section 5.3 of the IPv6 policy. The RIPE NCC made /48 assignments from the allocation as per section 5.4.1 of the policy. I hope this clarifies things. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 16:45:04 +0100, leo vegoda wrote:
No, the RIPE NCC received an allocation from Surfnet, as per section 5.3 of the IPv6 policy. The RIPE NCC made /48 assignments from the allocation as per section 5.4.1 of the policy.
Ah, you see RIPE NCC as an ISP. I didn't think of that. I feel a "what's an ISP" discussion coming up :-) rvdp
| > whois 2001:610:240:0:193::193 | inet6num: 2001:0610:0240::/42 | netname: RIPE-NCC-IPv6 | descr: RIPE NCC | status: ALLOCATED-BY-LIR | | In my understanding, this is not an allowed usage sice RIPE must | assign a /48 to themselves before the use the address space. | | However, I rose this issue with them, and they claim there is not need | for this. | | Could someone please explain to me where my understanding of the | allocation and assignment rules is flawed? I do not agree with them (RIPE NCC). It is my understanding that everybody that gets an allocation in IPv4, should make assignments from this to their customers/downstream entities. There is common practice to assign /48s to endsites. I think that IPv6 allocation/assignment should not be different from the IPv4 world, so I don't think your understanding is flawed at all. -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________
participants (5)
-
Gert Doering -
leo vegoda -
Pim van Pelt -
Robert Kiessling -
Ronald van der Pol