[address-policy-wg] Re: Registration of IPv6 DHCPv6-PD pools

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:00:52PM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> My interpretation the text of the policy different from yours. It does not
> say that assignments must be registered in the RIPE database, just that the
> database has to be accessible by RIRs.

That's my interpretation as well, see "the "or a DB operated by the
LIR":

> > Unfortunately it seems that this is actually required ny the policy though,
> > wether in the RIPE DB or a DB operated by the LIR in question, accessible
> > to the NCC.

I guess this is a reference to a local RIPE-like DB as employed by several
LIRs.

No matter in which database, it makes (in my view) absolutely no sense
to have each /56 in there as individual entries.

> I also think that if there is a highly dynamic movement of prefixes between
> subscribers in the pool then it would make most sense to register the pool
> rather than the end user, just like you do for IPv4.

Agreed, but the policy doesn't really (in my interpretation, I'm seeking
for clarification on that) allow this option as it clearly says that the
granularity of registration is supposed to be at End Site level - that's
quite normative.

> I suspect that most ISPs treat pool of dynamic IPv4 addresses as the site
> and the subscribers as users connected to that site. Does this need to
> change for IPv6?

Using this analogy ("pool of /56s" = "end site") would mean that the
pool can be only 256 /56s big (=/48) without approval by NCC, see policy
"5.4.2. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single End Site". In fact, this
would mean we would need to get approval for all our end user IP pools.

On the other side, a business ISP wouldn't ever need to approach NCC for
assigning their allocation full of /48s for end users, as long as any
single site does not exceed /48.

This makes no sense to me.

Even simple IPv4 DHCP pools for single WAN IPs aren't clearly regulated
by policy. Ask hostmaster A and he/she will say "that's your
infrastructure, as you need those IPs to connect your customer to you,
just use INFRA-AW, no approvals required". Ask the next hostmaster and
he/she will tell you differently, that this is abuse of INFRA-AW and
needs approval.

Ideally we're going to find a consensus interpretation on how to deal with
dynamic pools (of any size), be it for single IPs or prefix delegations
via DHCP-PD. I would see some merit in codifying this in the addressing
policy so it becomes much less ambiguous. For IPv4 this is probably not
really necessary anymore, we won't have to deal with this ambiguities
and indifferent interpretations by NCC for much longer. But "prefix
pools" is something we as a community have no experience how to deal
with regarding policy and policy application. It's something "new"
we will see with IPv6 deployment. I see value in giving NCC guidance
on how to deal with that.

Looking forward to further input.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0