[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 11:44:27 CEST 2013
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu> wrote: > Hi Jan, > Hello again, Elvis. :) > I'm not talking about how much you would use on your router or reverse dns. > > I'm talking about how much to 'reserve' as minimum for a point-to-point > link or for a service. > > … > > It's not preventing use of a smaller prefix, it's preventing > assigning/sub-allocating less than a /64 for anything. … > Well, I used to work as an IPRA at the RIPE NCC and my understanding of > the policy then (and now) was that assignments and/or sub-allocations of > anything below a /64 is out of scope and even if one IPv6 address is used > within a /64, the whole subnet is considered to be used. While this particular paragraph is fine, the others are less than, uhm, clear. > >> To me, this is the difference between letting me use e.g. >> 2a01:5b40::80:88:dead:beef:**cafe as the IPv6 address for www.oyet.no >> <http://www.oyet.no>, and having to use e.g. 2a01:5b40:88:cafe::1/64. >> > > I don't actually see it like that. You can still use the whole IPv6 > address to number a device, it's just that you can not split a /64 for > different services. > > For example, you can use a /64 to number, let's say, 100 devices that are > in the same vlan doing the same thing and providing the same service but > you can not number 100 different customers within a /64. > … because of this. This doesn't make sense. Why can I not number 100 (or indeed, hundreds of thousands of) addresses for different websites within a /64? I think, perhaps, that the words "customer", "service" etc. are poorly defined and lead to significant misunderstanding, and that I have not made myself clear. Whatever a hosting provider chooses to do with their IPv6 space to perform comparatively fine-grained routing and other network organization, should be pretty much irrelevant, as long as what's exposed to peers is sane. The example I came with is not randomly chosen, I know there has been similar issues with the understanding of semantics in IPv4 policy, which according to some NCC members seemed to imply that it would be impossible to use a separate IPv4 address per SSL site without comparatively major bureaucracy, since (the argument went) these addresses should be assigned and registered. Now you seem to be telling me that I cannot have a single webserver serving two different websites with two different IPv6 addresses, if they are both within the same /64. If this is really the case, IPv6 is, within RIPE, a 64-bit address space, not a 128-bit address space, and depletion is guaranteed to become a problem with the proposed policy, as well as the current policy, considering that every hosting provider would need _many_ /32 allocations, as I understand the policy and the argument you make. If, however, we consider IPv6 an 128-bit address space, and the rightmost /64 as simply not governed by RIPE policy, then a /48 is a _humongous_ address space, providing a LIR with 65k networks which may be redelegated to lower-level customers, such as e.g. web hosting providers, as long as these are routed as a /64 block. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131001/8d111323/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]