You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.2

Address Policy Working Group

Threaded
Collapse

[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Musings...

User Image

Gert Doering

2022-05-14 21:46:17 CET

Dear Working Group,

I announced too many weeks ago that a small group was looking into the
IPv6 policy, as it is today, why it is what it is, and whether the
underlying assumptions that the policy is based on are still valid.

After taking way too long (apologies - lots of good excuses, but
this really shouldn't have dragged so long), I present you document
with a very personal view on the IPv6 address policy, coming from me,
Kurt Kayser and Sander Steffan (.txt and .pdf).

This is not a task force document, this is not a formal WG document,
and this is not an official RIPE document (though it might make a labs
article).  It is intended as a personal look at 24-odd years of IPv6 
policy...  and to spur discussion and further work on some areas 
that feel "in the rough".

We'll present about this next week, picking some points as starting
points for "shall we do something here?  if yes, what?  and who?" -
but this is not about *me*, but about the commounity - *you*.  Anyone 
is free and welcome to start a discussion and work on aspects we brought 
up - or on other aspects.

Gert Doering
        -- long-time IPv6 policy geek
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
User Image

Maximilian Wilhelm

2022-05-22 20:59:04 CET

Anno domini 2022 Gert Doering scripsit:

Hey folks,

> I announced too many weeks ago that a small group was looking into the
> IPv6 policy, as it is today, why it is what it is, and whether the
> underlying assumptions that the policy is based on are still valid.
[...]
> We'll present about this next week, picking some points as starting
> points for "shall we do something here?  if yes, what?  and who?" -
> but this is not about *me*, but about the commounity - *you*.  Anyone
> is free and welcome to start a discussion and work on aspects we brought
> up - or on other aspects.

Thanks for this and the work you put into it!  I also believe some
parts of the policies need some review and overhaul, and I think you
identified a lot of details to think about.  I'll try go provide a
brain dump of some topics which resonated with me and which I ran into
in the past with one of my different hats.

First and foremoest, I agree with the observation that IPv6 PI space
is a complicated beast and I still remember my last attempt at making
it more usuable so people don't have to lie about there use cases.  I
fully agree with Jan's statement at the mic that we should look into
this again and like Gert's suggestion to just drop the "3rd party
clause" of the PI policy.  In *this* case the marked might really have
solved the issue and I'd be confident the issue of ISPs only giving out
one IP per subscriber won't arise as those offers will be laughted at.

Another commonly observed obstacle with IPv6 PI has been getting more
than one /48, which also has been brought up by Max (not me :)), which
I also fully agree with.  If a network has a number of sites today and
qualifies for n * /48 prefixes and in the foreseeable future might be
able to conntect those sites (by means of DF, waves, or whatever), it
does make a lot of sense to provide this organization with the
aggregate for ceil(n * /48).  Even if the sites don't end up being
interconnected there's not much difference in prefix size and routing
table usage, but less hassle for all parties involved.

As a customer I recently ran into the issue that an IP access business
connection came with an IPv4 /29 out of the box but no IPv6
whatsoever, not even a /64 on-link which would have totally sufficed
for the use case.  To get a /56 available on that link, it needed to be
booked for 30€ MRC on top of the existing monthly fee, which isn't
very 2020.  Private customers obviously get IPv6 by default as DS-lite
is used to serve their IPv4 traffic.  Tackling business practices
isn't really within our scope, but maybe we can have this in mind when
updating BCOP documents, to "motivate" ISPs to diverge from such
practices, which certainly do not help furthering IPv6 deployment.

Cheers,
Max
-- 
Friends are relatives you make for yourself.