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

[Carlos Morgado <]

On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 08:28:02PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> 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).
> 

Yes, that is indeed one scenario. But consider the extreme case of
an operator which only sells transits to multihomed customers who
already have their own address. Unless that operator starts assigning
/48s to P-t-P costumer links he'll be hard depressed to come up with 
200 nets qualifying as end site on his own infrastructure. 
This kind of network is not very diferent from a very big IX, except
it needs to be globaly routable (you know what I mean, don't pick at there
is no global routing table ;))

> > 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.
> 

Or, if the smaller clients with PA IPv4 space have totally diferent time
frames than the bigger PI transit clients. Anyway, I see what you mean.


> 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)
> 

While being possible technically, I fear this is highly impossible :)

> [..]
> > > 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).
> 

I figure interested people are in both lists so I tried to
keep cross posting down ;)

-- 
Carlos Morgado chbm@localhost - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594
GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B  599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2
The views expressed above do not bind my employer.