[Apwg-ipv6-papi] hello

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 05:08:32PM +0200, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
> 1) The LIR has a /29 .. /32 and customers (or the LIR itself for some 
> reason) announce fractions from several AS numbers. We could recommend 
> aggregation but it does not seem possible to forbid this behaviour.
> 
> That is split routing. De-aggregation.

Indeed, and somewhat out of scope for APWG.  Routing-WG has a document
that says "you should aggregate *if possible*!" and we have removed that
particular requirement from the IPv6 policy documents because it created
confusion and impaired deployments.

> 2) As you said, the LIR has a block and wants to move some or the whole of 
> it to another LIR.
> 
> That is split/merged administration. And maybe the combination of the two.
> 
> We have to think thoroughly about this.

This is address transfers, and we currently do not have an explicit policy
for that in IPv6 land.

Now, "transferring whole blocks" should be fairly easy if we follow the
sponsoring LIR model - or, precisely, if *all* address blocks that are
handed out are considered "sponsoring LIR model" -> move to new sponsoring
LIR, done.

The distinction "addresses given to the LIR" and "addresses given from the
RIPE NCC to a customer of the (sponsoring) LIR" blurs to some extent if 
you remove the PA/PI distinction...  so what remains is the special case
"the LIR is the same entity that is then listed as 'holder' of the 
/32-sized allocation", but I don't see why we couldn't handle all these
cases as "sponsoring LIR style, either it's the LIR itself or a contract
must be presented" - so if the addresses move, you present a new contract,
and the billing moves elsewhere...

That is going to be an interesting can of worms, though, "billing" and
"the charging scheme".  How should the costs be for

  - 10 ISPs, each becoming a LIR, each requesting a /32

  - 10 ISPs, one of them becoming a LIR, requesting 10 /32 for 10 ISPs
    through a single LIR

(both need to be possible)


[..]
> > What about the "model C"
> >
> > - an entity that has a business where they need to connect or offer services 
> > to customers (thus needs to make assignments) but can/will not become an LIR?
> 
> Yes. What about it?

"They get addresses via a sponsoring LIR and use them" :-)

Depending on whether they want to make assignments of size /48.../64, they 
get a /32, or just a /48.


[..]
> > I think we need the third option:
> >
> > - be able to request (via a Sponsoring LIR) a portable allocation
> 
> Yes. Something like that.

Yep.  See concept paper :-)

(Skipped much of the rest, I'll comment on that if I can find time - these
mails are so long :-) )

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
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 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/apwg-ipv6-papi/attachments/20130704/6313db59/attachment.bin