[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Allocation behaviour (organisations getting multiple /32's)]
Hi Jeroen, It is great to know that you are paying attention to allocations that are being made in other region. I would like to clarify the reason why APNIC made muliple allocations to UUNET. UUNET have multiple memberships with APNIC based on the networks in the region. As each economy, membership, managing their own address space therefore they also requesting for IP address separately. For aggregation purpose APNIC normally make allocations from contiguous block, as you can see from these allocations. This is similar to making a large allocation to an organisation then they further splitting between network for each economy. I hope the above explanation answered some of your queries if you need further information please feel free to contact us. Regards Son APNIC
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Allocation behaviour (organisations getting multiple /32's) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:52:33 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Organization: Unfix To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
I just noticed that UUNET/MCI got an additional 3 /32's:
inet6num: 2001:4441::/32 netname: UUNET-AU-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Australia Limited descr: UUNET Network country: AU
inet6num: 2001:4440::/32 netname: UUNET-HK-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Worldcom Hong Kong Ltd descr: UUNET Network country: HK
inet6num: 2001:4442::/32 netname: UUNET-JP-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Japan, Ltd descr: UUNET Network country: JP
They where all assigned to 1 person, who apparently works for UUNET/MCI in the US, not even the APNIC region, not even a role.
Did somebody say goodbye to aggregation?
Btw UUNET also has: 2001:600::/32 (Europe)
Apparently nothing in the US, in total 4x /32. 4 slots gone away. Are all global companies going to request separate /32's ?
Greets, Jeroen
--
_____________________________________________________________________ Anne Lord, Communications Director <anne@apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 18:07 +1000, John Tran wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
It is great to know that you are paying attention to allocations that are being made in other region. I would like to clarify the reason why APNIC made muliple allocations to UUNET.
Of course I have an interrest, routing changes happening in the Asian region affect the rest of the world. And what if I decided to move around the world? RIR areas don't split up the internet ;)
UUNET have multiple memberships with APNIC based on the networks in the region.
This could have sound plausible, but they are all assigned to 1 person according to the registry information, in the US which is not even the APNIC region, not to different organisations/memberships/economys whatever name you would give it. To me this just seems like a nice way to get PI space, while being the same provider. But we will see soon enough from which ASN's they get originated. Does this btw mean that we will soon see the various /20's and larger blocks being cut up to "region blocks", or even /32's being cut up to regional blocks, because that is easier for announcement and so that one does not have to carry it's own traffic around the world? One of the reasons, afaik, to give huge chucks to LIR's was to make sure that the routing table would stay at a minimum, but when RIR's start giving out /32's per country an ISP is in, then that won't hold true, especially in the AS department. In the latter case the RIR's could better opt for giving out /48's per organisation directly and help out in the multihoming problem quite a bit.
As each economy, membership, managing their own address space therefore they also requesting for IP address separately. For aggregation purpose APNIC normally make allocations from contiguous block, as you can see from these allocations. This is similar to making a large allocation to an organisation then they further splitting between network for each economy.
Except that these are bound to be announced separately. Getting a block from ARIN, one from RIPE and one from APNIC seems plausible to me, but getting a block for every country one is in defeats the whole aggregation idea. Greets, Jeroen
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Allocation behaviour (organisations getting multiple /32's) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:52:33 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Organization: Unfix To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
I just noticed that UUNET/MCI got an additional 3 /32's:
inet6num: 2001:4441::/32 netname: UUNET-AU-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Australia Limited descr: UUNET Network country: AU
inet6num: 2001:4440::/32 netname: UUNET-HK-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Worldcom Hong Kong Ltd descr: UUNET Network country: HK
inet6num: 2001:4442::/32 netname: UUNET-JP-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Japan, Ltd descr: UUNET Network country: JP
They where all assigned to 1 person, who apparently works for UUNET/MCI in the US, not even the APNIC region, not even a role.
Did somebody say goodbye to aggregation?
Btw UUNET also has: 2001:600::/32 (Europe)
Apparently nothing in the US, in total 4x /32. 4 slots gone away. Are all global companies going to request separate /32's ?
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Except that these are bound to be announced separately. Getting a block from ARIN, one from RIPE and one from APNIC seems plausible to me, but getting a block for every country one is in defeats the whole aggregation idea.
I dont really se what the benefit of getting different blocks from dfferent RIRs have. I get one single block I have the choice of announcing it as one prefix or as multiple prefixes. If I get multiple blocks I only have the choice of annoincing it as multiple prefixes. -hph
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 13:38 +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Except that these are bound to be announced separately. Getting a block from ARIN, one from RIPE and one from APNIC seems plausible to me, but getting a block for every country one is in defeats the whole aggregation idea.
I dont really se what the benefit of getting different blocks from dfferent RIRs have.
So that you don't have to haul traffic arriving in Africa for the site in US over your own network. Just one of the many traffic engineering issues when you are only announcing one single prefix.
I get one single block I have the choice of announcing it as one prefix or as multiple prefixes. If I get multiple blocks I only have the choice of annoincing it as multiple prefixes.
Thus, you hereby say, that every organisation should get a large block and simply split it up, to whatever extent they think suitable, and announce multiple smaller prefixes? What is the use of "Provider *Aggregated*" again? Why not call it "Provider Block" then because it will not be aggregated any more when splitting it up. Do also note that there are a couple of organisations already announcing /48's out of /32's and typically, due to filtering >/32, these prefixes have nice 'around the world' (as in packets go around the world, not that they are reachable) connectivity. Greets, Jeroen
participants (3)
-
Hans Petter Holen -
Jeroen Massar -
John Tran