[ipv6-wg@ripe.net][6bone] Re: sTLA alloc policies (fwd)
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..? -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:12:29 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> To: David Kessens <david@iprg.nokia.com> Cc: 6bone@ISI.EDU Subject: [6bone] Re: sTLA alloc policies On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, David Kessens wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 05:36:10PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Oh, Nokia must also have colored the truth slightly..
What are you trying to insinuate here ?!? Please refrain from such comments if you don't know the details.
Indeed, the applications are not public so I do not, unfortunately, know details :-(
We got our address space under the old rules.
Ah, I didn't notice this.
Despite this, it really shouldn't be too hard for any large multinational company to show plans for assigning address space to 200 other organizations. No need to color the truth at all.
You must be using some other definition of other organizations than I do. Further, I don't believe there are even 200 countries out there. :-) Let's see. Extending your interpretation any company with 200 employees could be entitled to a block: they _do_ want to provide xDSL service and proper addresses to their employees (who are private users) using the recommended /48 assignment! Right.. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity". Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48282 (47686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though... -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP"). A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that. The "one /48 fits all" policy sucks. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48282 (47686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP").
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
The "one /48 fits all" policy sucks.
Perhaps I'd better forward this discussion on the global-v6 policy list. It seems clear to me that 200 employees are inadequate.. but I believe "internal organizations" is not in the spirit either. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:41:01AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
The "one /48 fits all" policy sucks.
Perhaps I'd better forward this discussion on the global-v6 policy list.
It might be time to start a new round. Now we have a policy in place that at least doesn't slow down things too much, we need to get the "kinks" out of it... Also the policy is currently explicitely not addressing the problem of very large transit-only ISPs, which clearly do not fall under the current policy but seem to have valid reasons for wanting "independent" address space. While I strictly oppose having a "if you whine loudly enough, we'll give you your /32, no matter who you are" clause, one approach might be: - an enterprise is a LIR - this enterprise has 3+ customers with their own sTLA - this enterprise clearly states "we can't use down- or upstream space" (downstream due to the downstream potentially, upstream because there is no "single" upstream) - this enterprise doesn't want to assign to end users -> give them their own address block, size to be determined I want this to be restrictive, to not invent "PI"...
It seems clear to me that 200 employees are inadequate.. but I believe "internal organizations" is not in the spirit either.
Personally, I admit that I don't mind if Very Big Companies that span multiple continents get their own sTLA. There's not that many of them - even if there are 5000, both the routing system and the address space can easily handle that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48282 (47686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Am Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2002 09:31 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP").
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
I think as a student and even a students home is part of the university and not a third party entity, the university could give him any prefix within their address space, and yes e.g. a /64. It is part of the universities SLA space and it's up to them to decide what should go to the students home. This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable. Regards, Christian -- JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Schild A DFN project Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster Project Team email: Zentrum fuer Informationsverarbeitung join@uni-muenster.de Roentgenstrasse 9-13 http://www.join.uni-muenster.de D-48149 Muenster / Germany email: schild@uni-muenster.de,phone: +49 251 83 31638, fax: +49 251 83 31653
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Christian Schild wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2002 09:31 schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:27:07AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
I always understood it to be "a different legal entity".
Using 200 employees for that sounds a bit borderline to me, though.
Right.. Employees, as any other people, different legal entities, though...
Yes, of course. It's valid to the letter of the policy, but it's not really in the spirit of it. The idea was to catch "companies that manage IP allocations for third parties as part of their core business" (to avoid the term "ISP").
A company with 200 employees - and a university with 10.000 students - are interesting problems, though. Shall each "home site" get a /48? Or is it "one /48 for the whole company/university, and each home site only gets a /64"? I can't answer that.
I think as a student and even a students home is part of the university and not a third party entity, the university could give him any prefix within their address space, and yes e.g. a /64. It is part of the universities SLA space and it's up to them to decide what should go to the students home.
This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable.
Being usually for a loose policy on these issues, i can agree with Christian, and i wouldnt be shocked if a university (/48) decides that student homes get one /64 or several /64s (if several is the choice, perhaps it will be easier to reapply for a second /48 on the university side... ;-) But i think its rather difficult for a student home to apply for a /48, being that traffic routed via university... Will NRENs have that task of assigning /48s to everyone inside universities? Hard to imagine... Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167
Christian, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:44:48PM +0200, ext Christian Schild wrote:
This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable.
note that this is not a rule - it's considered to be a good practise, but you are certainly allowed to use less if you think that makes sense (and hopefully your customer will not complain or actually, maybe your customer actually should complain if you do this :-)). what it really means is: you won't get in trouble with the RIR who gave you the address space if you assigned /48's to end-sites (under the current set of rules). David K. ---
David Kessens wrote:
Christian,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:44:48PM +0200, ext Christian Schild wrote:
This might defy the "/48 for every endsite" rule, but anything else is impracticable.
note that this is not a rule - it's considered to be a good practise, but you are certainly allowed to use less if you think that makes sense (and hopefully your customer will not complain or actually, maybe your customer actually should complain if you do this :-)).
what it really means is: you won't get in trouble with the RIR who gave you the address space if you assigned /48's to end-sites (under the current set of rules).
Quoting Timothy Lowe (RIPE NCC) at the AIAD last wednesday: "If you have reasonable doubt that a client needs more than one (1) /64, give them a /48" His and other presentations from the AIAD (AMS-IX IPv6 Awareness Day) are available from: http://www.ams-ix.net/aiad/presentations.html <SPAM> As promised by Pim van Pelt and myself at RIPE42, SixXS is live: http://www.sixxs.net </SPAM> Greets, Jeroen
Pekka, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
Ask the RIPE NCC, fill in an application yourself, ask other people how they qualified (that's why some smart people hire a consult with experience with this kind applications to help them out).
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:12:29 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> To: David Kessens <david@iprg.nokia.com> Cc: 6bone@ISI.EDU Subject: [6bone] Re: sTLA alloc policies
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, David Kessens wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 05:36:10PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Oh, Nokia must also have colored the truth slightly..
What are you trying to insinuate here ?!? Please refrain from such comments if you don't know the details.
Indeed, the applications are not public so I do not, unfortunately, know details :-(
so don't spread rumors about us coloring the truth while you have no proof of any wrongdoing.
We got our address space under the old rules.
Ah, I didn't notice this.
again, please check the facts before you send a mail.
Despite this, it really shouldn't be too hard for any large multinational company to show plans for assigning address space to 200 other organizations. No need to color the truth at all.
You must be using some other definition of other organizations than I do. Further, I don't believe there are even 200 countries out there. :-)
Let's see. Extending your interpretation any company with 200 employees could be entitled to a block: they _do_ want to provide xDSL service and proper addresses to their employees (who are private users) using the recommended /48 assignment!
No. No. No! I didn't say that 'other organizations' are equal to one employee. You are making that up in your own fantasy world. You seem to be living in a very simple world. Do you have any idea how multi-national organizations work ?!? They have partnerships, joint ventures, cooperations with other organizations, are member of associations, support non-profit organizations, are part of standards bodies etc.. Many of these organizations are not owned or operated in any kind of way by the multi-national organization and still the multi-national organization can provide ip addresses and connectivity to such 'other organizations'. David K. PS also, instead of suggesting there might not be 200 countries, you could have done some more research: the UN has 191 memberstates. the number of countries in the world is close to this number, depending on your definition of what constitutes a country. So you are correct that there are less than 200 countries, but it is close enough to 200 that it really doesn't help you. ---
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:24:13AM +0300, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
I wonder what interpretation of "other organizations" is used when RIPE NCC evaluates the applications..?
Ask the RIPE NCC, fill in an application yourself, ask other people how they qualified (that's why some smart people hire a consult with experience with this kind applications to help them out).
I don't think RIPE NCC would respond to queries like that with useful answers, or people would tell exactly how they qualified (or often colored the truth). In any case, we already have sTLA so there is no need to fill anything.
What are you trying to insinuate here ?!? Please refrain from such comments if you don't know the details.
Indeed, the applications are not public so I do not, unfortunately, know details :-(
so don't spread rumors about us coloring the truth while you have no proof of any wrongdoing.
Depending on the interpretation of "other organizations", the behaviour is self-evidently "questionable" or self-evidently "okay".
Despite this, it really shouldn't be too hard for any large multinational company to show plans for assigning address space to 200 other organizations. No need to color the truth at all.
You must be using some other definition of other organizations than I do. Further, I don't believe there are even 200 countries out there. :-)
Let's see. Extending your interpretation any company with 200 employees could be entitled to a block: they _do_ want to provide xDSL service and proper addresses to their employees (who are private users) using the recommended /48 assignment!
No. No. No!
I didn't say that 'other organizations' are equal to one employee. You are making that up in your own fantasy world.
I didn't say you said so: read again. I said that is relatively logical extension of the arguments you said. "employees" are private persons, different legal entities.
You seem to be living in a very simple world. Do you have any idea how multi-national organizations work ?!? They have partnerships, joint ventures, cooperations with other organizations, are member of associations, support non-profit organizations, are part of standards bodies etc.. Many of these organizations are not owned or operated in any kind of way by the multi-national organization and still the multi-national organization can provide ip addresses and connectivity to such 'other organizations'.
No, I really don't have that much idea. I'm not saying that using multiple /48 for big multinational organizations is easy. Far from it. It must be more difficult than some small ISP's getting sTLA. But that's how the current rules are.
PS also, instead of suggesting there might not be 200 countries, you could have done some more research: the UN has 191 memberstates. the number of countries in the world is close to this number, depending on your definition of what constitutes a country. So you are correct that there are less than 200 countries, but it is close enough to 200 that it really doesn't help you.
I don't waste my time on irrelevant research, which is why I used 'might not be'. Whether there is 190 or 210 doesn't really matter. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
participants (3)
-
Carlos Friacas -
Christian Schild -
David Kessens -
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Pekka Savola