Dear colleagues, we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk Community in germany. They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on their own. As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used to lease addresses to clients/users. According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi. The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for usage by the connecting client/user/customer. How do you think about that situation? What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? Regards Thomas Drewermann Freifunk Rheinland e.V.
Hello! Why wouldn't they become a LIR? 19.06.2015, 15:03, "Thomas Drewermann" <thomas@freifunk-rheinland.net>:
Dear colleagues,
we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk Community in germany. They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on their own. As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used to lease addresses to clients/users. According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space.
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi.
The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for usage by the connecting client/user/customer.
How do you think about that situation? What would be your thoughts on such a proposal?
Regards Thomas Drewermann Freifunk Rheinland e.V.
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
Hello!
Why wouldn't they become a LIR?
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. --ck
Another way: 1) Create "inetnum" with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of "inetnum" allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; 2) Create "route" object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; 3) Announce your prefix; Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED "inetnum" inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR "inetnum". 19.06.2015, 15:15, "Christopher Kunz" <chrislist@de-punkt.de>:
Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
Hello!
Why wouldn't they become a LIR?
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world.
--ck
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
One fix: Not "inetnum" and "route" but "inet6num" and "route6". 19.06.2015, 15:23, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:
Another way:
1) Create "inetnum" with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of "inetnum" allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; 2) Create "route" object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; 3) Announce your prefix;
Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED "inetnum" inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR "inetnum".
19.06.2015, 15:15, "Christopher Kunz" <chrislist@de-punkt.de>:
Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
Hello!
Why wouldn't they become a LIR?
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world.
--ck
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Hi Vladimir, in that manner they would not be independent from us as organization. If anything happens to us they would lose their subnet which has been allocated by us. I forgot one tought in my first mail. To be particular about the policy in my opinion guest networks provided by PI assigment holders e.g. companies aren't legitimate use either. Because addresses are leased to users/devices which don't belong the company holding the PI assignment. That addresses could be treated as assignments to third parties as well. Regards Thomas Am 19.06.2015 14:24, schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
One fix:
Not "inetnum" and "route" but "inet6num" and "route6".
19.06.2015, 15:23, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:
Another way:
1) Create "inetnum" with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of "inetnum" allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; 2) Create "route" object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; 3) Announce your prefix;
Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED "inetnum" inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR "inetnum".
19.06.2015, 15:15, "Christopher Kunz" <chrislist@de-punkt.de>:
Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
Hello!
Why wouldn't they become a LIR?
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world.
--ck -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 06:24:27PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote:
I forgot one tought in my first mail. To be particular about the policy in my opinion guest networks provided by PI assigment holders e.g. companies aren't legitimate use either. Because addresses are leased to users/devices which don't belong the company holding the PI assignment. That addresses could be treated as assignments to third parties as well.
ISTR this discussion on this list before ;) I think the consensus was that single devices, temporarily becoming part of the End User's network, do not count as "assignment to third parties". It's a different story for a /64 assigned to a customer's VM infrastructure though - which is perhaps comparable to the Freifunk case... rgds, Sascha Luck
Dne 19.6.2015 v 13:56 Thomas Drewermann napsal(a):
Dear colleagues,
we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk Community in germany. They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on their own. As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used to lease addresses to clients/users. According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space.
Hello Thomas, list, I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give a single /64 to customer, are you? On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots, comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated.
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table. I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees. What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 addreses that could be assigned to customers.
I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi.
I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really need them, thus flodding the global routing table. Best regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET
The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for usage by the connecting client/user/customer.
How do you think about that situation? What would be your thoughts on such a proposal?
Regards Thomas Drewermann Freifunk Rheinland e.V.
Hi,
What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 addreses that could be assigned to customers.
One option is to get 8 freifunk communities together, start one LIR between them, get a /29 from RIPE NCC and then let each community use a /32 from that. I have a personal LIR that 'donated' a /32 to a community in such a way and it works fine. The deaggregation from /29 to /32 is not great, but not something that causes much trouble in the DFZ. Cheers, Sander
Anno domini 2015 Ondřej Caletka scripsit: Hi Ondřej, hi list,
I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give a single /64 to customer, are you?
God no :) A Freifunk network is a mesh network (build upon a BATMAN Layer 2 mesh in most cases, but other solutions exist, OLSR based f.e.) where interested individuals can connect their Freifunk node to and become part of that independent "peoples network". So a /48 allocation/assignment would be totally enough to fulfill this scenario(s).
On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots, comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated.
What definition would be required for "organization"? Usually a local Freifunk community is organized as lose group of interested people who may or may not have set up a registered association to have a legal entity. The goal behind Freifunk is that everyone can participate in a free and open wifi network by just bying some wifi hardware, installing some pimped OpenWRT software on it and connecting it to the wifi cloud (or via VPN to central network points). There is no central management of all nodes, membership requirement or anything the like.
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table. I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees.
What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 addreses that could be assigned to customers.
Well that's basicly the idea behind Freifunk Rheinland :) Which is fine for legacy IP 'n stuff but for larger Freifunk networks raises some problems and limitation as Thomas mentioned.
I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi.
I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really need them, thus flodding the global routing table.
Although I get your points, there's an operational downside to this: As every Freifunk community which exists or pops up in any major and minor city around Germany operates on their own, each community would need to have a /32 assignment to be able to set up local peerings. Some local ISPs would sponsor peerings and provide IPv6 transit for free if we were able to announce our own prefix to them which we can't today even if we have a /48 assignment from "our" Freifunk alliance LIR (as this would probably be filtered away by most of you as it's from the PA pool). As communities don't have money for leased lines/dark fiber/etc. to connect to one or better two of those central LIRs only VPNs/GRE tunnel to central nodes are in the cards and local peerings are out of the picture. I'd really like to leverage the offers of our local ISPs to peer with us and provide IPv6 upstream for more stable connectivity, less latency and more bandwidth. So our only hope would be to get a /48-PI prefix (or a /32 PA one which would be hugh waste of addresse space in my opinion) and wouldn't make a difference in number of routes in the DFZ anyway. Kind regards Max Freifunk Paderborn (+Freifunk Rheinland associate)
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:52:10PM +0200, Ond?ej Caletka wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really need them, thus flodding the global routing table.
You might as well get used to the idea. If seen as a loose federation of independent "network clouds" (as I understand the Freifunk idea, correct me if I'm wrong), this offers a first glimpse into how things will be if and when the "Internet of Things" becomes something more than vapourware. We might as well start thinking about how to solve the coming resource management issues. For the Freifunk people here, could you provide some detail on how this is solved for IPv4 at the moment? rgds, Sascha Luck
Anno domini 2015 Sascha Luck [ml] scripsit:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:52:10PM +0200, Ond?ej Caletka wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really need them, thus flodding the global routing table.
You might as well get used to the idea. If seen as a loose federation of independent "network clouds" (as I understand the Freifunk idea, correct me if I'm wrong), this offers a first glimpse into how things will be if and when the "Internet of Things" becomes something more than vapourware. We might as well start thinking about how to solve the coming resource management issues.
When by »loose federation of independet "network clouds"« you see every Freifunk community as one or more clouds which are loosely federated by mail/IRC communicated admins, then I could agree :)
For the Freifunk people here, could you provide some detail on how this is solved for IPv4 at the moment?
There currently are some solutions used by the different communities: a) each "Gateway" (central node in the Batman mesh network) has it's own VPN uplink to $vpn_provider (for legal reasons, usually outsite .de (think: Störerhaftung)) with NAT44 on the gateway and usually on VPN provider site, too. a2) Some internal routing to some concentrator nodes, then VPN uplinks there + NAT(s). b) GRE uplinks to Freifunk Rheinland e.V. who - as becoming LIR a not long ago - own a /22 and delegate small prefixes to each community over GRE tunnels + NAT44 before the GRE uplinks. c) I know of a least one lucky community which got a /24 delegation sponsored from one friendly ISP in northern Germany - may he out himself as I guess he's on this list - so they can use direct peerings for v4, too. But as legacy IP already is depleted there's not much thought put into that area in general as there's not much which can be done about it if there's no solution c) available. Personally I don't worry about IPv4 (besides building some active-active NAT44 solution with option »b« right now, which is kind of PITA) and put more hope into IPv6 where a large enough prefix which we could announce directly would enormously improve our upstream situation. I hope I could shed some light on the topic. Best Max -- If it doesn't work, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Hello Ondřej, list, the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users. There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to the wireless networks. In Regards to the alliance out of some freifunk communities to obtain a PA-block: I don't think it makes any difference if there are 8 more prefixes /32 (from PA) or /48 (from PI) in the DFZ. Count of prefixes in the DFZ would be the same for both scenarios. Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would be a waste of addresses. Besides the costs of a LIR membership won't be easy to afford event not for 8 communities. @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure." That problem has already been identified. (page 8) https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf Thanks, Thomas Am 19.06.2015 21:52, schrieb Ondřej Caletka:
Dne 19.6.2015 v 13:56 Thomas Drewermann napsal(a):
Dear colleagues,
we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk Community in germany. They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on their own. As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used to lease addresses to clients/users. According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. Hello Thomas, list,
I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give a single /64 to customer, are you?
On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots, comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated.
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table. I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees.
What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 addreses that could be assigned to customers.
I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi. I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really need them, thus flodding the global routing table.
Best regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET
The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for usage by the connecting client/user/customer.
How do you think about that situation? What would be your thoughts on such a proposal?
Regards Thomas Drewermann Freifunk Rheinland e.V.
Hi, On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote:
the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users. There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to the wireless networks.
So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading? I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach. [..]
Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would be a waste of addresses.
The whole point of IPv6 is to have plenty of addresses - and as there are 4 billion /32s, using one to give your users at least a /64 is the *right* way to waste addresses. Do not encourage anyone to use NAT66.
@Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure."
That problem has already been identified. (page 8) https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf
Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world. Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI. (Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses, I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but that's a topic for the AGM to decide...) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Anno domini 2015 Gert Doering scripsit: Hi,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote:
the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users. There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to the wireless networks.
So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading?
Hell no :) There is no "his router".
I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach.
There seems to be a fundamental misunterstanding: A user in this case is a human using his/her/its mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a local Freifunk node). It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the Freifunk network to connect own network, so by definition there is no need for NAT. (There are some considerations to used routed /64 inside the Freifunk mesh network instead of a large L2 segment but even then there would be no intended scenario where anyone would connect some non-Freifunk router.) We provide an access network for single devices not for (home) networks and by no means plan on changing that.
[..]
Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would be a waste of addresses.
The whole point of IPv6 is to have plenty of addresses - and as there are 4 billion /32s, using one to give your users at least a /64 is the *right* way to waste addresses. Do not encourage anyone to use NAT66.
This is not an intended scenario for a Freifunk network. We don't want to be in competition with any regular ISP. And we certianly won't encourage anyone to use NAT66.
@Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure."
That problem has already been identified. (page 8) https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf
Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world.
Well how about single IP address without NAT?
Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI.
(Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses, I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but that's a topic for the AGM to decide...)
IMHO that would be something worth a discussion. Kind regards Max Freifunk Paderborn / Freifunk Rheinland -- If it doesn't work, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Hello, Dne 27.6.2015 v 16:51 Maximilian Wilhelm napsal(a):
A user in this case is a human using his/her/its mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a local Freifunk node).
In that case, I think you should be able to count users' devices sharing a common /64 as a part of your "organisation infrastructure". I thought such use is not against the PI policy for IPv6, but now I'm not certain about anything :) -- Ondřej Caletka CESNET
A user in this case is a human using his/her/its mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a local Freifunk node).
It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the Freifunk network to connect own network
so i can not use my mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt as a tether? randy
So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading?
I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach.
[..] There won't be user's/customer's networks behind. All routers are part of the Freifunk infrastructure. All users will be on temporary basis like a guest network. Form them
@Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure."
That problem has already been identified. (page 8) https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world. I think a device like a user's cell phone or laptop connecting doesn't need more the a single address. And everyone needing a subnet must operate a Freifunk router on his/her own. This router will be then part of the Freifunk community's infrastructure. So he/she operating a part of the infrastructure won't be considered a user. So there will be no problem in usage of the PI space except a "guest" user connecting temporarily. Because their devices won't be considered as part of the Freifunk communities infrastructure.
Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI. Will it be legimate to use adresses out of an PI assignment to lease
Hi Gert, there will be no use for more than a single address. We are not going to use IPv6 NAT/Masquerading neither are we encouraging anyone to do so. them to users connecting temporarily? Besides the Freifunk use case there are some company's guest networks which have the same need. I don't think that the policy contains a statement about that. What do you think?
(Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses, I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but that's a topic for the AGM to decide...)
The Freifunk community I requested the PI space for doesn't demand a free ride. I tought that PI AS/space is the legitimate way for small orgs to get a slot in the global routing system. Isn't that the case? The key difference between Freifunk and ISP business is that there is no service providing to anyone except temporary wireless users. Everyone who wants more than just to use the network temporarily must operate his/her own router and get part of the Freifunk community's infrastructure. The Freifunk communitiy is no instituation you can order a network service from. That's why there are no assignments of /64 to users.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Thanks, Thomas
participants (9)
-
Christopher Kunz -
Gert Doering -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Ondřej Caletka -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Thomas Drewermann -
Vladimir Andreev