[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria
Hi Toshi,
> suppose what Maruta-san would like to raise here is even if LIR has
> lots of, say 100,000, customer to be assigned /64, it does not reach
> 200 /48 criteria.
>
> /48 = 65,536 x /64
> 200 x /48 = 200 x 65,536 x /64 = 13,107,200 x /64 >> 100,000 x /64
>
> This does not seem to meet 200 /48 criteria, as Maruta-san pointed
> out.
>
> Does anyone from APNIC have thoughts for this case?
Perhaps the guidelines should be written to emphasise the need for
a *plan* to provide IPv6 services, rather than the actual number of /48
assignments. Both are valid in the context of the current policy,
but ultimately the intention of the policy is to target entities that
wish to provide IPv6 connectivity services. If there is already an
IPv4 network infrastructure in place (as suggested above), this can
also be taken into account and any such organisation as the one above,
would and *should* most definately qualify.
Hope this helps,
Anne
--
>
> Best regards,
> Toshi
>
>
> From: Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>
> Subject: Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:20:09 +1100
>
> > > The assignment
> > > is either DHCP based or RA based, and always assign the same
> > > prefix to customers (so it is not dynamic).
> >
> > That is what I was labelling "persistent", and in this case the assignment
> > of a persistent /64 to a customer is entirely valid as far as I can see.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 04:42 PM 15/01/2004, Toru Maruta wrote:
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >I believe the technology (or protocol) used to assign IPv6
> > >prefix to users is not essential. The assignment may be
> > >either static or dynamic as long as the assigned prefix
> > >length is /48 (or shorter). I doubt that any provider would
> > >want to dynamically assign (i.e., give different prefix to
> > >the same user on each assignment) v6 address. However, I
> > >don't think we should preclude such a case from the initial
> > >allocation criteria, because there may be a provider that
> > >wants to do this type of service for security reasons or
> > >whatever.
> > >Therefore I prefer not to say static or dynamic in the example.
> > >
> > >Another point I would like to raise is that some ISPs in Japan
> > >are providing ADSL service with /64 assignment. The assignment
> > >is either DHCP based or RA based, and always assign the same
> > >prefix to customers (so it is not dynamic). If this type of
> > >service become a majority, there may be ISPs willing to provide
> > >IPv6 service to their ipv4 customers, but do not
> > >meet the criteria because they do not plan to assign /48.
> > >CATV networks may fall into the same problem, but my
> > >understanding is that the current policy does not give
> > >allocation to this type of service provider: is this
> > >understanding correct?
> > >
> > >Toru Maruta
> > >
> > > > I would hazard the guess that the default assignment model
> > > > is 'persistent'.
> > > >
> > > > i.e. whether you acces the ISP via leased lines, CATV, ADSL, or
> > > > dial, you would, by default, use the same IPv6 prefix.
> > > >
> > > > The case for dynamic assignment would be restricted to
> > > > mobile IPv6, where there is a true need for a temporary
> > > > address as a lower layer transport end-point identifier.
> > > >
> > > > i.e. if an ISP assigns IP dynamically to its subscribers through DHCP,
> > > > then the subsriber:IP ratio is 1:1 with a /48 for each subscriber. Its just
> > > > that DHCP would use very long leases in order to provide
> > > > some form of persistence of address.
> > > >
> > > > (After all if you use short leases, then what is the point of V6?)
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > > At 03:24 PM 15/01/2004, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > > > >Hi, sorry for the late response.
> > > > >
> > > > >Simply re-phrasing the policy may create another misunderstanding
> > > > >about the wording, so why don't we have specific examples for the
> > > > >cases that meets the criteria?
> > > > >
> > > > >Static assignment(leased lines, CATV, xDSL)
> > > > > Each static IP address assignment for its customers can be considered
> > > > > as a /48 assignment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Existing IPv4 infrastructure/customers can also be taken into
> > > > > consideration.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, if a CATV provider has 4,000 IP static connection
> > > > > customers in IPv4 and 5%(200) of them are expected to subscribe IPv6
> > > > > service connection, then, it this provider meets the criteria.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not only restricted to the cases where they assign multiple
> > > > > static IP in IPv4. Even if you assign a single static IP in IPv4,
> > > > > it's upto the ISP to assgin /48 to these customers.
> > > > >
> > > > >Dynamic Assginment service(mobile networks, dial-up, CATV, xDSL)
> > > > > I'm not sure how this will be evaluated, but if possible, it would be
> > > > > helpful to describe it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am curious to know for example, if an ISP assigns IP dynamically to
> > > > > its subscribers through DHCP, but the subsriber:IP ratio is 1:1,
> > > > > would they be eligible for a /48 for each subsribers?
> > > > >
> > > > >From: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka@nic.ad.jp>
> > > > >Subject: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria
> > > > >Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:27:45 +0900
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please refer to the draft below regarding initial allocation criteria.
> > > > > > This section could be important to reduce the 'psychological barrier'
> > > > > > of the requestor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your comments are highly appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > 7. Initial allocation criteria
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to current IPv6 policy, to qualify for an initial allocation
> > > > > > of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) be an LIR;
> > > > > > b) not be an end site;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - An end site should receive IPv6 address from LIR(s) under current
> > > > > > policy, because there is no portable address assignment policy
> > > > > > in IPv6.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - An LIR is encouraged to aggregate multiple /48s which will be
> > > > > > assigned to other organizations into /32 (or shorter where
> > > > > > an LIR receives multiple /32s).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
> > > > > > organizations within two years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - An organization must provide a 'plan' to make at least 200 /48
> > > > > > assignments, but is not necessarily required to 'commit' to do
> > > > > > 200.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - For example an ISP which has more than 200 customers can meet
> > > > > > this criteria (d) if it plans to provide them with IPv6
> > > > > > connectivity service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks and best regards,
> > > > > > Toshi
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka@nic.ad.jp>
> > > > > > IP Department, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
> > > > > > tel: +81-(0)3-5297-2311 fax: +81-(0)3-5297-2312
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wg-ipv6-guide mailing list
> > > > > > Wg-ipv6-guide@lists.apnic.net
> > > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-ipv6-guide
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >Wg-ipv6-guide mailing list
> > > > >Wg-ipv6-guide@lists.apnic.net
> > > > >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-ipv6-guide
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wg-ipv6-guide mailing list
> > > > Wg-ipv6-guide@lists.apnic.net
> > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-ipv6-guide
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Toru Maruta
> > >KDDI Corporation
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Wg-ipv6-guide mailing list
> > >Wg-ipv6-guide@lists.apnic.net
> > >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-ipv6-guide
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wg-ipv6-guide mailing list
> > Wg-ipv6-guide@lists.apnic.net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-ipv6-guide
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wg-ipv6-guide mailing list
> Wg-ipv6-guide@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-ipv6-guide
>
