RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Hi Marcelo,
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: 02 July 2004 10:49 To: Nils Ketelsen Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Hi Nils,
El 02/07/2004, a las 2:03, Nils Ketelsen escribió:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:49:27AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
Jon Lawrence <jon@lawrence.org.uk> writes: It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still MUST strive to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is essentially an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. The latter is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general.
I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need for address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy IPv6 in a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in their network.
imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation.
What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of the network, but rather on the location of the network within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term.
Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" but rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more useful numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these are big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more end-users then most ISPs.
how much is x?
x is irrelevant. -- Mat
Hi Mat,
imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation.
What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of the network, but rather on the location of the network within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term.
I agree that allocating prefixes w.r.t the location in the hierarchy preserves aggregation, which is vital for the routing system scalability. otoh, i am not sure that imposing that a network with zillions of nodes must renumber when changing isps is a reasonable requirement. that is why, defining what a very large network is may be useful regards, marcelo
Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" but rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more useful numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these are big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more end-users then most ISPs.
how much is x?
x is irrelevant.
-- Mat
Hi, On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:09:27AM +0100, matthew.ford@bt.com wrote:
imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation.
What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of the network, but rather on the location of the network within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term.
Which again brings up the question why a largish multihomed enterprise with links to ISPs in 30 different countries and 500 subsidiaries should not be granted an IPv6 allocation, while a small ISP somewhere in rural Germany with a single uplink and 200 dial-up customers *should*. Or why a big international carrier network that just doesn't do direct end-site allocations (think of the way the "Ebone" did business: only ISP down-stream customers, all having their own IP space already) should not be able to get an IPv6 allocation. (Just as a side note: there's an I-D draft out there to tie IPv6 allocations to AS numbers... though I'm not convinced that this is a good way to go, because it's likely to deplete the AS number space even faster, and [worse] move the "who is worthy?" discussion to the AS number policy). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
marcelo bagnulo braun -
matthew.ford＠bt.com