Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt>]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Gert Doering wrote:

(...)

> My proposal was different ("everybody who fulfills the necessary paperwork
> to become a LIR and then signes that they will assign /48s to third parties",
> no mention of numbers).  But this proposal was shot down by the Americans,
> and the APNIC people settled for this compromise.
>
> We need some sort of global policy, and we need it *now*.
>
> Immediately afterwards, discussion can start on policy revisal.

Gert: Hmmm... so is this a good reason to have another try?



> > Under this policy, a small or medium-size NREN would not be able to act
> > as a bridge between the high speed GEANTs or Abilenes and the general
> > internet, something that is crucial to our customers at least and would
> > definitely be a force against deployment.
>
> Why would that NREN need their own /35 for that, if they only serve
> as transit provider for third party networks that already have their
> own IPv6 space?  They could use a /48 from either of them.

Who has their own IPv6 space?
In my NREN case, usual procedure is peering with GEANT, one or more
Commercial ISP and local peering on the local IX.



> > Unless that NREN happens to
> > connect 200 small schools which can be given a /48 each. This seems to
> > me to be very broken.
>
> If a NREN connects a bigger university and that university connects
> student hostels, a fair number /48s can get used up pretty quickly.

Yep, i remembered that yesterday, but one /48 has 2^16 (65536) /64.
So that "fair" number will be what? 2, 3, 4 ?
Would the community accept this scenario easily?



> But in general, I agree that this is not perfect (but 200 is a lot better
> than 776).

Yep. But still a big figure by a small country's point of view...



> [..]
> > The consensus seems to be that HD is a good measurement system (I would
> > like to see the discussion on this because I don't agree that it's
> > measuring what people want it to measure). If we try to keep this then,
> > perhaps we could replace
>
> I don't see anything useful in doing this.  All you can achieve *now*
> is "delay things for another four month".  If you change the proposal
> document now, it has to wait for the next ARIN meeting to get consensus
> - which is four month hence.
>
> Besides, your proposal is just overly complex and doesn't help your
> "IPv6 NREN with no IPv4 infrastructure and no wish to assign lots of
> /48s to end sites" either - for a simple proposal for those cases, mine
> would have been fine, but people did not want that.
>
> We have been through all of this already...
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   74810  (74196)
>
> 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
>



./Carlos
                                                          "Networking is fun!"
-------------------                                        http://www.fccn.pt
<cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup
F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  fax: +351 218472167

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