Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy

[Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:00:25AM +0000, Robert Kiessling wrote:
> Gert Doering <gert@space.net> writes:
> > Yes.  But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce
> > a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than 
> > giving the end site a /48 of their space.   Which I could imagine as a 
> > way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32.
> 
> Why? 

It's a possibility to solve *that* issue.  Yes, it might not happen, but
different from IPv4, "renumbering is easy" (supposedly) and assignment
of a /48 is going to be a lot less paperwork and administrative work than
RIPE-141's.  So providers might *want* to charge more for "if you bring
your own /32, we have more work, so you pay more".

Or upstream providers start charging per /32 that a downstream ISP
announces, so there is an incentive for that ISP to bill it to their
customers.

It's just a possibility, but not an unlikely one.

> If it there was a significat effect of costs on prefix
> announcement, we wouldn't see the huge number of (pseudo-) PI prefixes
> in today's table. 

Today there isn't, which is part of the problem.   Today there is no
cost for deaggregating a /20 into /24s either, and this HAS to change.

[..]
> The proposal poses the interesting question of other conditions to
> becoming LIR apart from costs. Currently RIPE requires a minimum of
> imediately assigned address space. What if anyone wants to become LIR
> for IPv6 only? Was this discussed?

Actually RIPE requires the address space not for becoming a LIR, but for
getting your initial allocation.   If you don't want that, you can 
become a LIR just by signing that you have understood all the rules and
are willing to pay your fees.

[..]
> Sorry to ask since I wasn't at the meeting: What was said about larger
> allocation sizes than /32, e.g. for multinational ISPs for which a /32
> does not provide sufficient space for reasonable aggregation?

The draft states that those can get "whatever needed", but you have to
argue it by listing customers, displaying network plans, and so on.

As far as I remember, there was no opposition against this.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   71770 (72395)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net