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

[Carlos Friacas <]

On Sat, 17 May 2003, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,

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).

I think he ment: "The number of customers in this category are fairly
small".


> 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.

Hostmasters only have to "enforce" current policies. And in the case of
transit providers (in this case a tier-2), having a "number" doesnt really
help, because its putting all the weight into *dimension*.
A similiar tier-2 in Germany probably wouldnt have the same
difficulties... why? 2 hints: "market dimensions", "being present at the
WG meetings where the policies are made".

I think we need an extra rule on the policy stating:
BUT, if you are a transit provider for ISPs (at least two -- even the
smallest country has 2 ISPs?) you should also get a /32 (no more different
slashes, please...). Another definition of a tier-2 transit provider might
be the presence on a certain number of IXPs, or the interconection level
with the tier-1s ? [more ideas needed...]

I must also state that denying an allocation to smaller countries' transit
providers is slowing IPv6 deployment on these smaller countries, and also
strenghtening the business of the bigger ones by means of this *ugly*
policy (in reality, the EC might not really like this as it is now).



> (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)

A solution to become "client-dependant"...



> [..]
> > > 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).

Sure.


> 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.

The only way of changing this is people coming forward and report it!



Regards,

./Carlos
                                                          "Networking is fun!"
--------------         [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt]            http://www.fccn.pt
cfriacas@localhost, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup
F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  fax: +351 218472167