[lir-wg] 5:233 IL...How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 ?
Fri Nov 15 15:08:01 CET 2002
From: "Hank Nussbacher" <hank at att.net.il> How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 ? ====== IN-ADDR.IL ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 5:232 EASY 5:233 IL (ISRAEL) 5:234 KE (KENYA) 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("SNOOPY") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt IPv8 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] IPv16 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] 1WWWWWWWSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Nussbacher" <hank at att.net.il> To: "Sabrina Wilmot" <sabrina at ripe.net>; <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>; <lir-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators > At 05:39 PM 14-11-02 +0100, Sabrina Wilmot wrote: > > 5.1.1 is a problem for me. To quote: > a) be an LIR; > b) not be an end site; > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will > assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated > address allocation; and > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organisations within two years. > > I am an NREN comprising 8 universities. Not an ISP. How are we supposed > to get a /48 or a /32 for research purposes that can be used for multihoming? > > Thanks, > Hank > > > >Mobile operators participated in IPv6 policy development to ensure > >requirements were met. As was pointed out the RIPE NCC has made an IPv6 > >allocation to a mobile-service provider, and they were able to meet the > >current policy's criteria. > > > >If others feel the policy needs clarification, we encourage the community > >to continue discussing this issue of the current policy and how it would > >apply to a mobile-only operator using Gert Doering's proposal as a > >starting point. > > > >I suggest to limit this discussion to the LIR-WG list. > > > >Kind regards, > > > >Sabrina Wilmot > >-- > > > >o------------------------------------------o > >| Sabrina Wilmot sabrina at ripe.net | > >| Registration Services Operations Manager | > >| | > >| RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | > >| www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | > >o------------------------------------------o > > > > > >On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:12:46 +0100 > >Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to > > > > > know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only > > > > > having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing > > > > > connectivity to organisations with a /48. > > > > > -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy! > > > > > > > > The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in > > > > the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was > > > > agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May. > > > > > > > > An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need > > > > to meet all four requirements specified in the policy. > > > > > > > > <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#initial_criteria> > > > > > > This comment is not too helpful. Of course those are the rules :-) > > > > > > The problem I see is that the policy explicitely specifies "assigns /48s", > > > which is what "we" assumed to be the generic case for the ISP -> customer > > > relation. > > > > > > On the other hand, RIPE-246 explicitly specifies the use of smaller > > > prefixes for special cases: > > > > > > --------------- quote ---------------- > > > 5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > > > > > Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing > > > guidelines [RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as: > > > > > > * /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers > > > > > > * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by > > > design > > > > > > * /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device > > > is connecting. > > > > > > RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP > > > actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the > > > detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, > > > --------------- quote ---------------- > > > > > > Looking at the number of potential IPv6 customers of a mobile network > > > operator, assigning each of them a /48 does't make much sense. > > > > > > On the other hand, even when assigning each end customer a /64, > > > and aggregating at cell boundaries (for example), the mobile network > > > is likely to make better usage of the IPv6 space than many smaller > > > ISPs that do match the letter of the "200 /48" rule. > > > > > > I, personally, think that a mobile network operator really should be > > > able to get an IPv6 allocation - if not them, who else? And I also > > > see that at least one of them already has one (DE-D2VODAFONE, > > > 2001:0928::/32). > > > > > > So I think a clarification is needed - maybe the wording of the policy > > > document has to be changed to make very explicit that this is acceptable > > > usage, something like this: > > > > > > -------------- proposal ------------ > > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it > > > will assign /48s or /64s according to 5.4.1, by advertising that > > > connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and > > > > > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > > > organisations within two years, or plan to assign "enough" (to be > > > defined) /64s to be equivalent to 200 /48s. > > > -------------- proposal ------------ > > > > > > one could apply HD ratio to the /64s inside the /48s, like "it's valid > > > if <hd-ratio>% /64s out of a /40 are assigned", a /40 being "about 200 > > /48s". > > > > > > Gert Doering > > > -- NetMaster > > > -- > > > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) > > > > > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > > > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > > > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > > >
[ lir-wg Archive ]