Re: [address-policy-wg] Comments on 2006-01 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
At 15:14 15/06/2006, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
The current swamp is a block in which the allocations are not structured according to network topology. All IPv6 blocks are structured, at the highest level, according to continental-scale areas. At a more detailed level, PI blocks smaller than a /32, could be allocated according to some kind of topological addressing plan. For instance, RIPE could have a Scandinavia aggregate, CIS aggregate, Central aggregate (FR, DE, BE, CH, NL, PL, AT), Western aggregate (UK, IE, ES, PT) and Southeast aggregate (Ex-Yugoslavia, GR, TR, IL).
We have one router in almost every country you listed and some you haven't, all within Europe. Do we get 5 /32 then? In addition, one of the networks we manage which also covers a large area is planned to be handed off to its own managing entity, complete with the infrastructure. So we'd like PI v6 space please to address it. And for it and our primary network we plan to allocate 0 addresses to 0 customers for the next 2, 10, 20, infinity years. -- Tim
The current swamp is a block in which the allocations are not structured according to network topology. All IPv6 blocks are structured, at the highest level, according to continental-scale areas. At a more detailed level, PI blocks smaller than a /32, could be allocated according to some kind of topological addressing plan. For instance, RIPE could have a Scandinavia aggregate, CIS aggregate, Central aggregate (FR, DE, BE, CH, NL, PL, AT), Western aggregate (UK, IE, ES, PT) and Southeast aggregate (Ex-Yugoslavia, GR, TR, IL).
We have one router in almost every country you listed and some you haven't, all within Europe. Do we get 5 /32 then?
If you are an LIR then you get one /32. If a future PI IPv6 policy hands out allocations I suspect they will be considerably smaller than a /32. Maybe /48 or maybe a few of them. You will you have to justify the size of the PI allocation and if RIPE did manage the PI addressing out of several regional aggregates, then you could ask them for 5 different regional /48s.
In addition, one of the networks we manage which also covers a large area is planned to be handed off to its own managing entity, complete with the infrastructure. So we'd like PI v6 space please to address it.
Normally, if you are an LIR, you would build this network and assign a /48 per end-site. Then, when the other entity takes control, they could decide to leave it that way or to change ISPs and readdress or to apply to RIPE for a PI allocation.
And for it and our primary network we plan to allocate 0 addresses to 0 customers for the next 2, 10, 20, infinity years.
Yes, when I worked for Ebone we did the same thing until we started selling some end-user Internet access in 2000. A company which sells managed VPN services to clients in which they own the routers and firewalls on the client sites and use NAT exclusively one the CPE routers, is in the same position. Technically, they only assign addresses to themselves for the CPE devices which they own and the NAT pools in those devices. In the IPv6 world, I expect NAT to continue to be used in such scenarios only it will be pure NAT without any port-mapping magic. I agree that the policy around 200 assignments is flawed and should be changed. But if people need addresses today, they need to work with that flawed policy and make a plan to fit it. --Michael Dillon
participants (2)
-
Michael.Dillonļ¼ btradianz.com -
Tim Streater