[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
Cathy,
Yes, I understand why people are nervous about repeating historical
mistakes. What I was clumsily trying to express is that objectively,
I don't think we need to be particularly nervous about whether we
give out /32 or /35 at the large end, or /48 or /51 (say) at the small
end - yes I know that's a factor 8 in each case, but we do have that
much slack in terms of available space. What is very nervous-making
is the risk of people believing that they need, and can get, PI prefixes,
and a lot of the last day's discussion is right on the mark
about the risks there.
Brian
CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I realize that there is what we consider to be a huge amount of
> v6 address space. What you have to understand though is that
> you have a bunch of folks who are living day to day with the
> last time the powers that be decided that we had more address
> space than we could possible use. They gave out A's and B's
> and they too thought that there was more than we could possibly
> ever use. Now the registries (ARIN in particular) spends a lot
> of time trying to figure out how to reclaim that space. There
> are a lot of folks who feel that we're repeating old mistakes.
>
> Note also that if there are no justifications required to get
> a /32 except becoming what RIPE calls an LIR (this term varies
> from region to region), this means that it won't be long before
> folks there are many many small multihomed sites that have these
> blocks. Mirjam said herself in the meeting that the reason that
> RIPE has justification stuff required for V4 blocks now is because
> folks had figured this out and started getting LIR space just
> because they're multihimed. It isn't like we're starting from
> scratch here, folks are pretty sophistocated these days. Further
> since the actual methods of handing out the space vary from
> region to region it means that there may be more hurdles than
> just becoming an LIR. For example, in the RIPE region, when
> you get a block you can announce the whole block, but you have
> to ask permission to actually use each subnet (no matter how
> small). Of course their v6 policy may be different, who knows.
> This is not the same way that it works in all regions.
> Unless you get space from all three (soon to be 4) it is
> difficult to really understand the subtle differences.
>
> It wasn't my intent to argue this here, it was just my intent
> to point out that I doubted that this policy would reach
> consensus in all regions because of the past history.
> I misinterpreted the original note as a submission of changes
> for the document. I thought it was premature to make changes
> at this point. I am glad that wasn't the intent of the note.
>
> We'll see what happens. As Anne said (thanks Anne!) the APNIC
> meeting is coming up. The ARIN policy meeting is in April.
>
> Thanks!
> ---CJ
>
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and
> Assignment Global Policy
> Cathy,
>
> I'm still quite surprised by the way in which the fully justified
> conservatism of the registries for IPv4 space is being over-extrapolated
> to IPv6 space. If you look objectively at the argument that Gert
> gives, and consider how the size of the IPv6 prefix space compares
> to the total IPv4 space, /32 just isn't risky, and it gets rid of
> yet another judgement call.
>
> (I wasn't at the RIPE meeting either, but I did hear Mirjam talk
> on this topic yesterday.)
>
> Brian
>
> CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
> >
> > Since the events of the recent RIPE working group meeting have not
> > been discussed at either of the other regional policy forums,
> > proposing something here may be somewhat premature. I do not believe,
> > although things never cease to amaze me, that this will reach any sort
> > of consensus within the ARIN region. I am not sure about the APNIC
> > region. Based on some meetings with the European Government
> > Advisory Council (just after the RIPE meeting) it is clear that it is
> > important that we have a global policy. Is there maybe some way
> > that we could come up with a compromise that would reach consensus
> > in all three policy forums? Something other than requiring no
> > justification for a /32?
> >
> > Thanks
> > ---CJ Wittbrodt
> > (ARIN Advisory Council and ASO Address Council member)
> >
> > From: Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>
> > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assig
> >>nment
> > >>Global Policy
> > Hi,
> >
> > from your comments, I gather you have not been to the RIPE IPv6/LIR
> > policy meeting. So let's add a few comments (while waiting for James
> > Aldridge to publish the "official" word on it):
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > > > 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria
> > [..]
> > > The goal was to give a site a /32 if it can justify it will use
> > > it. The word "immediately" (as in demonstrate an immediate need) is
> > [..]
> > > So the real issue here (and this comes up again in later parts of the
> > > document) is what is a reasonable way to objectively evaluate a
> > > request for address space that requires some guessing as to whether a
> > > proposed plan will actually be carried out. If the time frame is too
> > > long, it becomes easy to make optimistic plans that won't pan out, and
> > > then the RIRs get into a different problem.
> >
> > Consensus on the IPv6/LIR policy meeting was "drop the criteria".
> >
> > To be precise, I proposed the following:
> >
> > - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their
> > fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address
> > can get a /32. No further justification required.
> >
> > - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only
> > assigment of 2000 /32s per region. So the maximum wastage is 6000
> > /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking
> > about), and 6000 additional routes.
> > After that, we're going to reconsider policy.
> >
> > There was concern from the other regional registries (ARIN and APNIC),
> > but broad consensus from the people from the RIPE region.
> >
> > Reasoning (shortened):
> >
> > - why are we putting criteria there? To keep out "some that we do not
> > want". Conservation is not an issue. Routing table growth might
> > be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know.
> >
> > - do we want major national research networks connecting something like
> > "50 universities"? YES
> >
> > - will this research network meet any criteria based on "you must use up
> > a big number of /48s, otherwise you can't get a /32"? NO, if you
> > assign a /48 per university (which would be plenty!), because that
> > means "you can only demonstrate a need for 50 /48s"
> >
> > On the other hand, if you say "I connect lots of private customers
> > over DSL lines, using fixed IP addresses, giving each user a /48 (which
> > is OK according to IETF guidelines)", reaching over 50 /48s is very
> > easy.
> >
> > Does this mean the second example is "more worthy" to get a /32? Does
> > it mean they will make "better use" of it?
> >
> > So all technical criteria based on /48 usage must fail, and criteria
> > based on single IP usage will fail as well (due to the /48 rule). If we
> > can't propose criteria that work, drop them - BUT limit the amount of
> > damage that can be done.
> >
> > [..]
> > > Or is it the 776 end site figure (i.e., too high)?
> >
> > Think of the research networks. One /48 per university would be
> > "according to the /48 rule: each SITE gets a /48".
> >
> > 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
