[ipv6-wg@localhost] 5:233 IL...How are we supposed to get a /48 or a /32 ?

["Jim Fleming" <]

From: "Hank Nussbacher" hank@localhost
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@localhost
To: "Sabrina Wilmot" sabrina@localhost; ipv6-wg@localhost; lir-wg@localhost
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] 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@localhost |
> >| 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@localhost 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@localhost
> > > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
> > > 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
> > >
>