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: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made

  • To: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" < >
  • From: James Aldridge < >
  • Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:49:21 +0200

"Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" wrote:
>   I think we were talking about increasing the size of a sTLA (when the
>   requirement for that can be documented), rather than allocating another
>   sTLA?!

OK, my last mail was maybe a bit terse.  Some background might help.

We (KPNQwest, formerly EUnet) are a "supernational" registry.  In the IPv4
world this is much like having 6 individual large registries with the
corresponding number of open allocations that implies.

Now, in the IPv6 world I'm told that we can't get an IPv6 sTLA for our direct
backbone customers or for any of our other national networks because KPNQwest
Finland (covered by the eu.eunet supernational registry) already has our one
sub-TLA.

Of course, that one sub-TLA gives us a total amount of address space which is
adequate for our current requirements for the whole network but once this is
split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their own
routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable
routing...

James


>   Also, I seem to remember that the NCC reserves some space in the address
>   tree for that, so you might be able to obtain a "2nd" sTLA back-to-back
>   with the original one, which is equivalent to decreasing the prefix
>   length.
>   
>   I guess you would be free to structure that (combined/extended) address
>   space internally (for distribution to customers by more than one
>   operational unit).
>   
>   But probably I am missing something essential here.
>   
>   Wilfried.
>   ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Of course, there would be at least one more sub-TLA allocated if the IPv4
> rules for supernational registries were to be applied to IPv6 instead of
> restricting these to only having a single sub-TLA allocation... :-(
> 
> James
> 
> -- 
> James Aldridge,  Senior Network Engineer (IP Architecture)
>                  KPNQwest, Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL
>                  Tel: +31 70 379 37 03; GSM: +31 65 370 87 07
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>  _________________________________:_____________________________________
>   Wilfried Woeber                 : e-mail: Woeber@localhost
>   UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
>   Universitaetsstrasse 7          : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
>   A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe  : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   First things first, but not necessarily in that order....





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

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community