[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification -Initial allocation criteria "d)" (fwd)
Pekka,
Thank you for sharing RIPE discussion with us.
The issue is not only the RIPE region matter since
the original document (this policy) was created by
the globally coordinated discussion.
Laura,
Some of the points raised up in your text, I put my comments
as one of the original policy text development members.
> 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "d)"
>
> "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
> organisation must [...] have a plan for making at least 200 /48
> assignments to other organisations within two years."
>
>
> 1. According to this criterion, LIRs who are operators planning to only
> make /64 assignments appear not to qualify. Was this the community's
> intention?
This is a good point. There was no experience accumulated yet
in ISPs to assign a /64 block to its end users when this text
deveploped. So, we should re-consider whether we apply this
condition to an ISP who plan to assign /64s to their users.
>
> 2. There are a number of interpretations of requirement "d)":
>
>
> - NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS
>
> -- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least 200 separate /48
> assignments. Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments
> and the size of each must be a /48.
There is no restriction that each assigment size should be /48.
The only thing the policy ask ISPs is "If you apply the independent
address block of /32, please aggregate the network size of 200
of /48s or more for contributing to reduce the routing table size."
The size needs to reach is 200 of "registered /48" assignments.
> -- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least the equivalent of
> 200 /48 assignments. Possible scenario: LIR can assign one
> /41 and seventy-two /48s.
It could be OK, only if /41 assignment is approved by RIR.
Assignment of more than a single /48 is required RIR/NIR level
judgement.
Sub-allocation of /41 is not considered as "assignment" to users.
Assignment is accomplised when it is registered on database.
> Which interpretation was intended regarding the number of
> assignments?
>
>
> - RECIPIENT OF ASSIGNMENTS
>
> -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to
> 200 separate organisations (regardless of which
> organisation). Possible scenario: LIR can make 1 assignment
> to its own organisation and 199 assignments to 199
> "different" organisations.
Policy clearly said, LIR can assign a single /48 to their own office
use network from the allocated /32.
> -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to
> 200 separate organisations outside of its own infrastructure.
> Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments to 200
> "different" organisations. Assignments to its own
> organisation will not be counted.
Policy clearly said, LIR can assign a /48 to each POP of their
service network. So, they can include those network plan. If they
have 50 POPs, they can count 50 /48s.
> -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200
> separate networks (regardless of which organisation these
> networks belong to). Possible scenario: LIR makes 200
> assignments to 200 networks. 100 can be for its own
> infrastructure and 100 can be for another single
> organisation.
It could be ok, if LIR has 100 POPs for the first 100 of /48s.
But I don't understand how LIR can "assign" 100 of /48s to
a single organization. I have no idea how RIR can justify it.
If a company has 100 internet connecting points, then, they
can have a /48 for each connection from the corresponding ISPs,
though.
Again, LIR can sub-allocate 100 of /48s to a down-stream ISP,
but those are not the assignment. Assignment is accomplished
once the assignment(s) (every /48 size) is registered on
Database.
> -- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200
> separate networks outside of its own infrastructure. Possible
> scenario: LIR makes 200 assignments to 200 networks "outside
> of its own infrastructure".
There is no intention on the original text as described above.
regards,
Kosuke
Pekka Savola wrote:
FYI.
(There is supposed to be more mails, not sure if I'll forward them --
have a look in the archives.)
Some of these clarifications could change the original intent
significantly.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:36:40 +0200
From: Laura Cobley <laura@ripe.net>
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation
criteria "d)"
Dear Colleagues,
We have received many comments that the text of the current IPv6
Allocation and Assignment Policy document can be difficult to read and
understand. Some of these difficulties were presented at RIPE 48 by Leo
Vegoda:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-ipv6-policy.pdf
During the following discussions, the RIPE NCC was asked to co-ordinate
work on clarifying the text. Please note that we do not intend to
propose any policy changes.
In order to assist with rewriting the IPv6 Policy document, we would
like to have some input from the community on the issues needing
clarification. We will send each issue for discussion in a separate
mail.
This is the first of these mails.
Below is an excerpt from the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
Policy:
5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "d)"
"To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
organisation must [...] have a plan for making at least 200 /48
assignments to other organisations within two years."
1. According to this criterion, LIRs who are operators planning to only
make /64 assignments appear not to qualify. Was this the community's
intention?
2. There are a number of interpretations of requirement "d)":
- NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least 200 separate /48
assignments. Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments
and the size of each must be a /48.
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make at least the equivalent of
200 /48 assignments. Possible scenario: LIR can assign one
/41 and seventy-two /48s.
Which interpretation was intended regarding the number of
assignments?
- RECIPIENT OF ASSIGNMENTS
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to
200 separate organisations (regardless of which
organisation). Possible scenario: LIR can make 1 assignment
to its own organisation and 199 assignments to 199
"different" organisations.
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these 200 assignments to
200 separate organisations outside of its own infrastructure.
Possible scenario: LIR must make 200 assignments to 200
"different" organisations. Assignments to its own
organisation will not be counted.
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200
separate networks (regardless of which organisation these
networks belong to). Possible scenario: LIR makes 200
assignments to 200 networks. 100 can be for its own
infrastructure and 100 can be for another single
organisation.
-- The LIR has to have a plan to make these assignments to 200
separate networks outside of its own infrastructure. Possible
scenario: LIR makes 200 assignments to 200 networks "outside
of its own infrastructure".
Which interpretation was intended regarding the recipient of
assignments?
We look forward to receiving the community's input on this.
Best Regards,
Laura Cobley
Registration Services
RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
global-v6@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
--
**********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************
Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group
IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
(Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University)
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
