RE: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy

["Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

leo vegoda wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:05:18PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Nothing prevents you from *not* routing those addresses on the 
> > Internet?  Unless of course it's a problem in the global-v6 policy, which 
> > should then be reviewed.
> 
> The current policy says that to "qualify for an initial allocation 
> of IPv6 address space, an organisation must [...] plan to provide 
> IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s 
> by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated
> address allocation".

According to this wording depending on interpretation ofcourse
one could also say that it is only allowed to advertise the single
aggregated form. Which is one thing that currently really isn't
done by many organisations seeing that a lot of them announce
both /32's and /35's for the same allocation. Not even speaking
about the numberous smaller blocks.

Currently there are 586 TLA's (all RIR's + 6bone) of which 17
are returned to the 6bone pool and 170 (29%) are not announced
as the allocation made, but subnets could be announced (eg /48's)
But those are not counted in those stats. 17 TLA's are announced
with both a /32 and a /35. "older" networks are mostly announced
the "newer" allocations usually are not probably because of
reasons like planning, hardware and whatever. I have seen networks
being allocated and being allocated the same day though :)

Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/ for these numbers.

> The implication is that an LIR must plan to announce its allocation 
> to the public Internet. 

IMHO it should not be a requirement, but if differs to wonder
as it is most likely that a organisation is going to have access
to the global internet they will need to find other means of
access, aka another ISP, why do they require the allocation then?

An announcement doesn't say anything about use, thus an organisation
can simply announce it and not be doing anything with it at all
while some other organisation doesn't announce it and use it
globally, but on an internal basis.

> However, the wording is vague and leads to uncertainty for those
> requesting space and those evaluating requests. I would like to 
> see the policy updated to use crisp, clear, unambiguous language. 
> If there is a consensus that unique, public addresses should not be
> available to private networks that will not connect to the Internet 
> then that should be stated clearly. If that is not the case then
> the reverse should be made clear.

Ack. IMHO allocations are to be made to entities requiring address
space, that space should be used for connecting to the global internet
but can ofcourse be used for other purposes to uniquely identify
those networks. The main advantage here is that when such a network
wants to connect to another network the address space is unique.
There is enough space, use it.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP22lpymqKFIzPnwjEQJ00gCggkSpeLOXtebOsAdYUmhmM+IxzwIAn0BH
8bOBATq+20iYsSnXUnQ4ryHN
=LJJF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----