Assignment transfer among LIR
Dear WG, As a service provider specialized in CATV, we will soon face a competition problem. CATV operators, often, do not operate their IP business, they take these services from a specialized service provider (like us) and therefore the end-users get IP(v4) addresses from that provider. In the future, CATV operators will not be able to change their provider because the new provider will be unable to assign IPv4 space to them. On the other side, there is no need for additional IPs, the CATV operator already has them (from another LIR). If we do not solve this issue, this market will simply and completely freeze, giving way too much power to the 'current' provider (like us) over the CATV operator. I've been thinking a lot about how to solve this issue, so I'll just throw a first pseudo-draft, give me your feedback and we'll make it better. Post-IPv4-Exhaustion customer transfer When a customer changes from LIR A to LIR B: - RIPE NCC will allocate the needed space (out of the 'reserved-for-new-LIR' space) to LIB B, but not larger than the original one. - RIPE NCC will inform LIR A about the transfer and will request the space to be returned. - If LIR A cannot return the space (deaggregation?), RIPE NCC will freeze (how?) it. NOTE: There should maybe be a minimal assignment size for this process, maybe /22. (Why? To avoid a flood of very small assignments transfer requests to RIPE NCC). Let me know what you think, how it can be improved or if you think its BS. Cheers, Pascal
On 22 May 2012 14:15, Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor@finecom.ch> wrote:
Let me know what you think, how it can be improved or if you think its BS.
Why not just use IPv6... J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
Why not just use IPv6...
Using IPv6 does not remove the need of v4, you know that. Plus, my proposal is not about using more v4, but just about keeping the same number of v4 and being able to change ISP. Transforming the PA into PI and allowing the transfer could also be a solution but I don't like it due to possible massive deaggregation. Pascal
On 22 May 2012 14:33, Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor@finecom.ch> wrote:
Why not just use IPv6...
Using IPv6 does not remove the need of v4, you know that. Plus, my proposal is not about using more v4, but just about keeping the same number of v4 and being able to change ISP. Transforming the PA into PI and allowing the transfer could also be a solution but I don't like it due to possible massive deaggregation.
Really, isn't CATV a closed access network that you have control off? Could you do 6to4 (or something similar) at the border if you need to access v4 content? Or have I misunderstood what you are doing? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
Really, isn't CATV a closed access network that you have control off? Could you do 6to4 (or something similar) at the border if you need to access v4 content? Or have I misunderstood what you are doing?
6to4 is IPv6 tunnel over IPv4, not the other way around, what you mean is DNS46/NAT46 which is outdated, maybe 6rd or MAP46 (which is not yet really available). But that's not the point. My point is about post-v4-exhaustion policy, not about transition technologies, nor about lack of v4. It's about keeping the customer assigned v4 space (and not even the IPs, just the assignment size). Pascal
On 22 May 2012 15:18, Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor@finecom.ch> wrote:
Really, isn't CATV a closed access network that you have control off? Could you do 6to4 (or something similar) at the border if you need to access v4 content? Or have I misunderstood what you are doing?
6to4 is IPv6 tunnel over IPv4, not the other way around, what you mean is DNS46/NAT46 which is outdated, maybe 6rd or MAP46 (which is not yet really available).
My bad, I was thinking Stateless NAT64 (aka SIIT)
But that's not the point. My point is about post-v4-exhaustion policy, not about transition technologies, nor about lack of v4. It's about keeping the customer assigned v4 space (and not even the IPs, just the assignment size).
but why are you trying to keep it on IPv4 and not moving to v6 J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
On 22/05/2012 15:53, James Blessing wrote:
but why are you trying to keep it on IPv4 and not moving to v6
- because ipv6 does not yet have a critical mass - because v6 cpe kit still mostly blows - etc Nick
On 22/05/2012 14:15, Pascal Gloor wrote:
- RIPE NCC will allocate the needed space (out of the 'reserved-for-new-LIR' space) to LIB B, but not larger than the original one. - RIPE NCC will inform LIR A about the transfer and will request the space to be returned. - If LIR A cannot return the space (deaggregation?), RIPE NCC will freeze (how?) it.
Pascal, Difficult to implement in practice, because ip addresses are assigned under specific conditions and changing them retrospectively is Hard. Specifically, the two problems that I see are that if LIR A has assigned a bunch of IP addresses to a customer: 1. LIR A will not want to lose those IP addresses because in the ipv4 depletion era, they will have nominal trading value. 2. LIR A will also want to use them for customer stickiness. So if the customer moves to LIR B, then there are two policy options for customers in that situation: a) convert all PA space to PI space b) leave as-is Difficult to see how scenario a could be achieved legally. And in scenario b, LIR A may use the IP addresses either to keep the customer or else to charge them a fortune for departing with those IP addresses. The value will be determined to some extent by the going market rate for IP addresses + the nominal cost of getting the customer to renumber. Not cheap, and highly prone to abuse. IOW, I don't see any clear solutions to this problem for existing contracts. Nick
On 5/22/12 4:47 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
IOW, I don't see any clear solutions to this problem for existing contracts.
+1 Probably all those CATV operators should be LIRs in the first place anyway. Cheers, Jan
On 22/05/2012 15:56, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
Probably all those CATV operators should be LIRs in the first place anyway.
yes. They should. Nick
Probably all those CATV operators should be LIRs in the first place anyway.
Indeed. Running your own infra with a sub-allocation (or even worse, an assignment) from an LIR has it's risks, which you must take into account when planning your business. Even if you have a contractual agreement saying you can run off with the addresses once you're no longer buying connectivity from the LIR, it's still a risk. (I know some LIRs do allow using their address-space as practically your own, but that's only as long as the contract is valid). Also worth remembering in RIPE region is that if you're running any kind of ISP business with IPv4 PI (as in you have customers who use your addresses), you can't do the same with IPv6 PI. The policy doesn't allow that and it continues to come as a surprise to some. Therefore the only reasonable choice is to become an LIR (and plan your business so that you can afford it :-) ). ____________________________________ Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy
Probably all those CATV operators should be LIRs in the first place anyway.
They could, indeed. But as they have no knowledge of IP whatsoever and do not operate any IP device, it was always easier for them that we take care of this. Some did, but they are far from a majority.
Running your own infra with a sub-allocation (or even worse, an assignment) from an LIR has it's risks, which you must take into account when planning your business.
That is not that case (at least for our customers), we own the infrastructure (Layer2 and above), we run it (for them), they don't. Pascal
On 5/22/12 6:22 PM, Pascal Gloor wrote:
That is not that case (at least for our customers), we own the infrastructure (Layer2 and above), we run it (for them), they don't.
Why moving elswhere then? Cheers, Jan
Why moving elswhere then?
It's the other way around. We are the wholesale cable provider and this might be an issue to gain new customers if they don't have IPs and can't have them from us. Pascal
On 5/23/12 2:30 PM, Pascal Gloor wrote:
Why moving elswhere then?
It's the other way around. We are the wholesale cable provider and this might be an issue to gain new customers if they don't have IPs and can't have them from us.
I think you nailed it. So it's not the fairness and competitiveness issue but purely lack of resources and IPv4 depletion that is beating your business up (and not just yours). You have several ways out, as already pointed in this discussion: - Big evil CGN - A bit less evil A+P derivates (MAP, 4RD, etc) - when they become available - IPv6 with NAT64/DNS64 in the core Pick your poison :) Cheers, Jan
IOW, I don't see any clear solutions to this problem for existing contracts.
To be honest, me neither, but I wanted some community feedback to see if there would be a solution I didn't think of. I guess we can drop this now, I'll think of something more administrative/boring and less fancy. ;-) Pascal
Hello, Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor@finecom.ch> wrote:
RIPE NCC will inform LIR A about the transfer and will request the space to be returned. Good luck with that.
I guess we can drop this now, I'll think of something more administrative/boring and less fancy. ;-) Use IPv6, this could also be something your customer might not get from competitors at the moment.
Regards. Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
Pascal, On Tuesday, 2012-05-22 16:26:50 +0000, Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor@finecom.ch> wrote:
IOW, I don't see any clear solutions to this problem for existing contracts.
To be honest, me neither, but I wanted some community feedback to see if there would be a solution I didn't think of.
In my mind, this is the MAIN problem with IPv4 exhaustion. Anyone who got IPv4 address before exhaustion can provide services, anyone else cannot. Think back to the Internet in 1990 and where it would be today if the phone companies held all of the IPv4 space and you had to go through them for all connectivity. While James Blessing's "use IPv6" suggestion is perhaps not easy, it's the best answer we have. :( -- Shane
Hi Pascal, Hi all...
Dear WG,
As a service provider specialized in CATV, we will soon face a competition problem. CATV operators, often, do not operate their IP business, they take these services from a specialized service provider (like us) and therefore the end-users get IP(v4) addresses from that provider.
[...] basically i share most of the concerns other people already mentioned, so i try to make it brief: I don't really see this happening, the problem is basically self-made (design failure) and not at all only a specific problem of this kind of service, let alone one that might be relevant for a policy change in general. - Change your network design, NOW (or become LIR, or get PI, or everything) - No LIR would give away a part of their allocations for free if they can get $$$ for every IP they "own" soon - There is a reason for PA not being PI, maybe historical, but it's still there (Hello Gert/chairs, reminder - you wanted to share some more thought about the idea of making this go away in the (IPv6-)future? :-) ) - IPv6 transitions methods ARE there and usable, start deploying them today, and you won't have those problems later - There's always CGN, there are CATV providers (also some DSL providers) in my area that don't guarantee you a "public IPv4 address" at all anymore already in their terms and conditions and i actually think that's a smart choice - If you really need "other IPv4 addresses" after depletion because $management is too stupid to avoid this problem, pay the price for stupidity and buy them. I'm pretty sure the policy will allow it by then. Ressource transfer (of ALLOCATIONS that is) is possible, today already. That actually should cover most bases. [...further ranting about $the_world not deploying IPv6 10years ago already deleted due to lack of relevance...] -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
participants (8)
-
Dan Luedtke -
James Blessing -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Nick Hilliard -
Pascal Gloor -
Sascha Lenz -
Shane Kerr -
Tero Toikkanen