About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation

  • To: Carlos Morgado < >
  • From: Gert Doering < >
  • Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 20:28:02 +0200

Hi,

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
[..]
> In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure 
> transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are
> multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are
> fairly small. 

Size of customer doesn't matter (everybody who might have two or more
network segments gets a /48).

> Also, it's a chicken/egg problem. I can draw up a plan with planned 
> allocations for current customers but I can't commit to customer deploy 
> dates - I can't even commit to they being our costumers a month from now. 

This is well understood by RIPE hostmasters.  Right now, the rules
are meant to be interpreted in a very relaxed way - this is: if you have
200 or more IPv4 customers (that have addresses from you) that might go 
to IPv6 *if* it really takes off in the next years, then you qualify.

If you have significantly below 200 IPv4 customers, it's becoming 
difficult - but you should nevertheless talk to the RIPE NCC hostmasters
and see what could be done.

(If it really doesn't work out under the current policy, you could use
a /48 from one of your customers to number your infrastructure and your
services - yes, this sucks, but it's better than no IPv6 transit at
all)

[..]
> > For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted.  The to-be-formed
> > editorial committee needs to find a solution here.
> I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ? 

It's more a lir-wg problem (as it's policy, not technical aspects).

This specific problem wasn't discussed in either working group, but we
are aware of it.  There are a couple of other cases as well.

> I'm also curious to know about other providers sufering from this problem
> and what solutions they propose.

Indeed.  Comments welcome.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  54495  (54267)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>
 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | © RIPE Community. All rights reserved.
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community