SV: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Randy Bush [SMTP:randy@psg.com] Sendt: 9. februar 2001 15:16 Til: Bjarne Carlsen Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Emne: RE: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
are we? we see folk using dsl at t1 rates to replace p2p t1 lines because it's a very different cost for the circuit. (here, t1 is expensive and dsl is based on old alarm circuit tarrifs) [Bjarne Carlsen] OK - in other words, you don't even see the small difference, that I see on this side of the pond..
just to push this to the limit. in the states, we usually have free local dialup. so we have analog "nail up" customers, i.e. they stay dialed up 7x24. it's just another form of p2p dedicated circuit. and, as far as address allocation policy goes, treat them the same as an OC12 customer, they justify what address space they need. [Bjarne Carlsen] Yes, but make it somehow easier for them, since there is one significant difference between private an corporate customers, (at least as seen from this little backwater), namely that the corporate customer usually understands the technical jargon used in documents like RIPE-141 and the private customer invariably says "Huh, er... what is an IP-address??"
/Bjarne
Hello everyone, Monday has now concluded for most of the world, and we have now engaged in a fairly vibrant discussion of Leo Vegoda's residential broadband assignment presentation. How should we proceed now, as a WG? Beyond just the remaining discussions, many of which will inevitably analyze an interesting facet of the main thread but which will not talk directly to the thread's focus, how else can we approach the idea of fixed boundary assignments before putting this to a vote? Leo, what are your views at this point? I think NCC staff input might be appropriate now. It is my opinion that we should all be prepared to vote on a recommendation to the NCC at the Bologna meeting. Thoughts/flames? /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------*
i vote that large sites get a /8, medium a /16, and small a /24. i always loved architecture by democracy. randy
Randy Bush wrote:
i vote that large sites get a /8, medium a /16, and small a /24. i always loved architecture by democracy.
Actually, I was going to put up a proposal that those providers who do aggressive route filtering get a /16, and those that don't must use NAT. But seriously, last I checked RIPE was still a member-driven organization. In the absence of an issue which requires direct IETF oversight, I'm pretty sure we still get to help shape the address assignment policies by which we all must abide. /david
How should we proceed now, as a WG?
Someone should try to formulate a consensus from the previous discussion. Post that to the list, and present it to the wg in Bologna. Any voulenteers ? -hph PS: strictly speaking we don't have a concept of voting, check out http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html under "How to develope RIPE policy " http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/howto_devolep.html
Hans Petter Holen wrote:
How should we proceed now, as a WG?
Someone should try to formulate a consensus from the previous discussion.
Post that to the list, and present it to the wg in Bologna.
Any voulenteers ?
Maybe the address space usage should be categorized by sort of access, see below. This can then be documented in a policy recommendation like the policy on single-IP webhosting and static-dialup IP's today. As I have see so far there are different ways how the carriers/ISP's are handling technologies like xDSL/CableModem: Most often we can differentiate between some sort of virtual dial-up and shared media, examples: - Many xDSL require PPPoE or PPPoA on the client side to establish a connection to the Internet. -> This is simply a virtualized dial-up, same rules apply, eg. you get a real IP out of an pool when you dial in. If you allow more concurrent connection from a customer is your problem. The need for a static IP has to be justified just as it is today with analog/ISDN dial-up (RIPE-141). Here the number of concurrent users is significant. This can be usually at most one per customer (always-on). - Many CableModem operator run their network segments as simple LAN's and assign an IP address dynamically by DHCP (or some other mechanism). -> This can also be treated as virtualized dial-up, same rules etc. The number of concurrent computers (devices) online depends on the operator. As far as I know many allow only one. The need for a static IP has to be justified just as it is today with analog/ISDN dial-up (RIPE-141). Here again the number of concurrent users is significant. This can be usually at most one per customer (always-on). - Sometimes xDSL lines are run like a full blown leased line with line IP's and a subnet on the customers side. -> This should be discouraged like ip-based webhosting unless justified with a RIPE-141 form as this wastes not only a /29 (in the case of a general assignment) but also the line IP's, so the efficiency goes even further down. Any use of leased line type access should be discouraged for the average residential / small business mom-and-pop shop unless justified by an RIPE-141 form. As long as you get at least one real IP you either have your PC directly connected or you have some sort of 'smart' router equipment (mention Cisco, ZyXEL, BinTec, etc.) which can do NAT/PAT or masquerading just fine, even for services like Napster and such. - Are there any sorts of "new" broadband accesses I forgot? Yes, based on the response to this post I would volunteer to make this a full RIPE document and present it in Bologna. -- Andre Oppermann AO6-RIPE
David R Huberman;
Monday has now concluded for most of the world, and we have now engaged in a fairly vibrant discussion of Leo Vegoda's residential broadband assignment presentation.
How should we proceed now, as a WG?
Beyond just the remaining discussions, many of which will inevitably analyze an interesting facet of the main thread but which will not talk directly to the thread's focus, how else can we approach the idea of fixed boundary assignments before putting this to a vote? Leo, what are your views at this point? I think NCC staff input might be appropriate now.
It is my opinion that we should all be prepared to vote on a recommendation to the NCC at the Bologna meeting.
Thoughts/flames?
You should be aware that the issue is more fundamental than to vote on an alternative way to conserve the space. We will run out of the space anyway (perhaps sooner than you expect because of various factors) that: Leo Vegoda> This is consistent with the RIRs' goal of conservation. the current purposeless conservation is a meaningless goal. The meaningful goal is purposeful consumption. Masataka Ohta
Hello all, The RIPE NCC will be glad to summarise the discussion on this list and at the Bologna meeting, if required. However, we would like to give the Working Group a few more days to discuss this subject before we summarise as we want to be sure that everyone wishing to contribute has an opportunity to do so. Best regards, leo vegoda RIPE NCC Bloke
leo vegoda wrote:
Hello all,
The RIPE NCC will be glad to summarise the discussion on this list and at the Bologna meeting, if required.
However, we would like to give the Working Group a few more days to discuss this subject before we summarise as we want to be sure that everyone wishing to contribute has an opportunity to do so.
Best regards,
leo vegoda RIPE NCC Bloke
Sorry to be a pain but could you please summerise where we are in the current discussion so we can try and formulate the ideas more fimly in our thinking processes. Many thanks, -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Burley "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss, UUNET EMEA Hostmaster you can have a pretty good life [SB855-RIPE] if you're stupid and willing to wait" ------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (8)
-
Andre Oppermann -
Bjarne Carlsen -
David R Huberman -
Hans Petter Holen -
leo vegoda -
Masataka Ohta -
Randy Bush -
Stephen Burley