[Apwg-ipv6-papi] first draft?

[Elvis Velea]

Hi,

On 7/15/13 8:38 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:32:24PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
>> Hope you had a great vacation Daniel.
>>
>> can't wait to see your input/comments.
>>
>> Basically, I'm still wondering if it's going to be ok (accepted by the
>> community) to have a minimum allocation of a /32 either made by the
>> RIPE NCC or by the LIR.
>
> Allocations are always made by the RIPE NCC :-) - I assume this is
> sub-allocations?
>

in the document, there are only allocations and assignments. Allocations 
can be made by the RIPE NCC to the LIR (not portable) or to the customer 
of the LIR (portable). (Sub-)Allocations can also be made by a customer 
(to it's downstream customer).

>> I would see a few problems:
>> - if the LIR makes minimum /32 allocations.. they will run out of
>> space in their allocations after 8 customers and will need an
>> additional allocation. Should the /32 allocated to a customer (the
>> sub-allocation) be considered fully used once it's made?
>
> When introducing sub-allocations to IPv4, I think I said "sub-allocations
> are not considered used".  So if a LIR is careless with sub-allocs, and
> runs out of space, they need to ensure that the sub-allocs are properly
> filled by the receipients.

True, in IPv4 sub-allocations are not considered in use. However, in the 
model in my head, and as I understood from you, the big allocations 
would have been of a minimum /32.
Either the allocations made by the RIPE NCC (portable) or the ones made 
by the LIR (sub-allocations, or non-portable allocations) would have 
been of a minimum /32.

I might have misunderstood and I actually think that we should allow any 
allocations between a /48 and a /32 (or even larger). However, in this 
case, we may risk seeing ultra-conservative LIRs which would not give 
enough space to their customers and therefore force the customers to use 
/64s or smaller prefixes.

>
> If this is properly documented, I think LIRs will not carelessly hand
> out large swaths of space, but really consider what they are doing - some
> might be fine with /32s (because they know that they are serving a specific
> constituency, and won't ever have more than 3 direkt customers...), others
> might prefer to go for /40s or so.

ok, so we will not make the smaller allocation size a /32.

>
>
>> -if the NCC will make minimum /32 portable allocations.. what will be
>> the incentive for someone to become an LIR? should the cost for the
>> portable allocations be different then the 50? paid for the /48
>> (portable) assignment?
>
> That will be an interesting can of worms, as APWG cannot decide on the
> cost of things...
>
> My initial idea was to make the "big allocation" slightly more expensive
> than the "small allocation" (like, 200 EUR vs. 50 EUR), to avoid giving
> the wrong signal - if we make "big allocations" too expensive, we signal
> "hey, use a /48, and give all your dial-in customers just a /128 and
> have them make NAT66!" - which we should not do.
>
> But in the end, this is something for the RIPE AGM to sort out.

correct

>
>
> An incentive to become a RIPE member: "direct dealings with the RIPE NCC"
> (some really want to be "that independent!"), plus "voting rights at the
> AGM", and possibly other services that are members-only, like dnsmon,
> Atlas, etc.
>

ok :)

> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster
>

cheers,
elvis