Re: IPv6 policy at LACNIC( was: RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

[Sascha Lenz <slz@s-lz.net>]

Hay,

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:00:42PM +0100, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> Hi Gert,
> 
> just a comment...
> 
> >
> > - IPv6 policy:
> >
> >    "Announce a single block to the Internet"
> >
> >   as long as there is no other multihoming solution for end users and/or
> >   resellers, it seems to be generally accepted practice to announce
> >   /40s or even /48s out of an ISPs PA block as more specific.  The
> >   policy shouldn't try to enforce things that either can't be enforced,
> >   or will seriously harm acceptance of IPv6 (due to multihoming customers
> >   not changing to v6).
> 
> Well, curent policy states as the c condition to initial allocation the
> following:
> 
> "c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
>       will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its
>       single aggregated address allocation; and"
> 
> So, the announce a sinlge block requirement is not introduced by this policy
> proposal, but it was already there in the policy.
> 
> Two question, then:
> 1- Do you think that there is difference among the policy and the proposal
> because the way it is stated?
> 2- In case there is no difference, do you think we should also change the
> policy and remove the requirement of a singla announcement?

In my eyes, the current "global" IPv6 Policy needs to reviewed anyways.
It was meant to be for starters, and AFAICS some things (like the "only
one aggregated Prefix of the Allocation is to be announced on the global
internet"-part) are outdated (i think).

==> Probably this rather needs to be addressed to all RIRs since there is
    a joint IPv6 Policy (at least at the moment there should be one).

BTW:

> > - Microallocation policy:
> >
> >   There are networks out there that will not accept anything more specific
> >   than a /24.  That is, /25s are guaranteed to not be routeable *today*.

I think you mix some things up here, Gert.
Read again:

"Require an allocation equivalent to a /25 previously allocated by the applicant's Internet Service Provider in order to qualify for the microallocation of IPv4 address space to Multihomed End Users."

I think you mean this part of the Website?

If I understand that correctly, it only means that for _getting_ 
a microallocation of IPv4 space, which is defined in 

http://lacnic.net/lacnic-V-micro-en.pdf
as
"During LACNIC IV the forum approved the implementation of assigning IP address space larger
than a /24 and smaller than a /20 to Multihomed End Users."

you need to have a /25 _before_ you get this /24 to /20 Microallocation
so you can effectly do BGP Multihoming globally.

Whereas i don't really know why this requirement was set - i'm not
really part of LACNIC Region :), i think this is not meant that
anyone will get a /25 for BGP Multihoming like you probably thought.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

-- 
==========================================================================
= Sascha 'master' Lenz          SL277-RIPE              slz@s-lz.net     =
=                                                                        =
= You can rent this space for $$$          * PGP public Key on demand *  =
==========================================================================