[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Jun 27 15:42:35 CEST 2015
Hi, On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote: > the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users. > There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to > the wireless networks. So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading? I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach. [..] > Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would > be a waste of addresses. The whole point of IPv6 is to have plenty of addresses - and as there are 4 billion /32s, using one to give your users at least a /64 is the *right* way to waste addresses. Do not encourage anyone to use NAT66. > @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. > Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: > "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service > provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service > provider's infrastructure." > > That problem has already been identified. (page 8) > https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world. Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI. (Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses, I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but that's a topic for the AGM to decide...) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150627/cdd1df41/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]