[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 ]
Maximilian Wilhelm
max at rfc2324.org
Sat Jun 27 16:51:01 CEST 2015
Anno domini 2015 Gert Doering scripsit: 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? Hell no :) There is no "his router". > I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach. There seems to be a fundamental misunterstanding: A user in this case is a human using his/her/its mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a local Freifunk node). It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the Freifunk network to connect own network, so by definition there is no need for NAT. (There are some considerations to used routed /64 inside the Freifunk mesh network instead of a large L2 segment but even then there would be no intended scenario where anyone would connect some non-Freifunk router.) We provide an access network for single devices not for (home) networks and by no means plan on changing that. > [..] > > 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. This is not an intended scenario for a Freifunk network. We don't want to be in competition with any regular ISP. And we certianly won't 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. Well how about single IP address without NAT? > 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...) IMHO that would be something worth a discussion. Kind regards Max Freifunk Paderborn / Freifunk Rheinland -- If it doesn't work, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
- 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 ]