Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: V$BaM(Basz Re: V$BaM(Basz [ GLOBAL-V 6 ] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?

[Kosuke Ito <kosuke@bugest.net>]

Hi Janos,

At current, the discussion gets into the subsequent allocation.
Correct?

Janos Mohacsi wrote:
> 
> At 11:56 AM 2/12/02 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:42:07AM +0000, Janos Mohacsi wrote:
> > > > > To reducing the junk applications: RIR/LIR should check the real IPv6
> > > > > address usage.
> > > >
> > > >We're turning in circles.  Please do the math: IPv6 address usage is a
> > > >useless metric, if applied onto single IPv6 addresses (obviously).
> > > >
> > > >Even if applied to /48s, it's not a very useful metric.  Think of networks
> > > >with few but very big customers (like country-wide research networks
> > serving
> > > >/48s to universities).
> > >
> > > I don't think IPv6 address usage is useless metric. LIR can show their
> > > registry, how much IPv6 address delegated to their customers.
> >
> >Of course address assignments should be documented.
> >
> >But for a metric to be useful, you have to be able to measure something,
> >and use the result to judge something.   And IPv6 address usage is NOT
> >useful to judge anything (mostly due to the /48 rule).
> >
> > > Users can
> > > show their allocation currently in place. They can show traffic
> > information
> > > also. IPv6 address usage, for me, the address block is used for Internet
> > > access, IPv6 access usage. Not just allocated and put in a nice document,
> > > but used.
> >
> >Again: the amount of address space (what is "address space"?  Single IPv6
> >addresses, or /48s) doesn't define the importance of a network or anything
> >else.
> >
> >Compare an @home-type network with 10000s of /48s given out to customers,
> >each of the end customers using only a handful of IPs, to a research
> >network, giving out 50 /48s to 50 big universities, each of those using
> >100000 IPs per /48.
> >
> >Which one is making "better usage" of their IPv6 address space?  Which one
> >should be given an application, and why?
> 
> None of them is better than the other. This can be a two fold process for
> LIR and RIR.
> 
> 1. The network operator submit an application with DETAILED plan of IPv6 usage.
> 2. RIR/LIR evaluate it. They might want the applicants justify their IPv6
> address usage plan. They want the applicants to redesign their IPv6 plan.
> It can be subjective, but here LIR/RIR can be liberal.
> 3. Applicant get the address space.
> 4. RIR/LIR do an audit on IPv6 usage. Not only the address space, but real
> usage. RIR/LIR should compare the plan submitted in the application with
> the reality. This can be Draconian.
> 
> Any IPv6 usage is IPv6 address usage even a /64. You should not count by
> percentage, but you should count by number of routing entries. This will be
> the most constraining element... You should count the routing entries in
> your level, and one level of above you.
> 
> Regards,
>                  Janos Mohacsi

Is this your recommendation for RIR/NIR to do this kind of IPv4 like
operation?
Are you proposing this process for subsequent allocation 
rather to take the current draft proposal?

Please clarify me what your intention to describe the above process.

Thanks in advance.

Kosuke



-- 
**********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************
Kosuke Ito, Base Strategy Planning Group
IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
Tel:+81-3-5209-4588  Fax:+81-3-3255-9955
Cell:+81-90-4605-4581
mailto: kosuke@v6pc.jp   http://www.v6pc.jp/
Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net