[address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Lutz Donnerhacke lutz at iks-jena.de
Thu May 31 11:52:05 CEST 2007
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:36:56PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > > * Jørgen Hovland wrote: >>>>* Jørgen Hovland wrote: >>>>>Q: Is it correct that you can get a /26 IPv4 PA block, but you can't get >>>>>a /96 IPv6 PA block? Why is that? >>>> >>>>It's not correct. /48, /56, /64, and /112 are the most common >>>>assigments here. >>> >>>Which RIR is that? According to RIPEs IPv6 policy, the minimum PA block >>>is /32 so I was kinda wondering. I need a /96. I can even manage with a >>>/112. (Please let's not start a useless discussion of why you think I >>>need it). >> >>I talk about assignments, not about allocations. If you try to get a >>IPv4 PA allocation from RIPE, I wonder how you will get a /26. All you >>can get is an IPv4 PA assignment from your LIR with a size of /26. >> >And now I am feeling royally mixed up... >I thought we were discussing IPv6? Of course. The original question was how to get a /96 IPv6-PA, because it is possible to get a /26 IPv4-PA. This question was motivated by finding an argument for IPv6-PI. The answer is very simple: When talking about PA, we have the following scheme: There are allocations given from RIR to LIR. And there are assignments given vom LIR to Users. When talking about PI, we have a different scheme: There is no allocation. The assignments are given from the RIR to Users. Breaking it down to the question: A /26 IPv4-PA is an assignment. A /96 IPv6-PA is an assignment, too. Allocations of PA does not exists with this network sizes. Rolling it back to the motivation, there is no relationship between the existence of PA and PI. We can't argument with PA assigments in order to find a reason for or against PI.