[Atlas-anchors-pilot] Network configuration details

[Romeo Zwart]

Hi Tore,

On 12/10/30 10:32 , Tore Anderson wrote:
> Hi Romeo and thanks for your answers,
> 
> * Romeo Zwart
> 
>>> - Desired prefix lengths for IPv4 and IPv6? (If shorter than /31 for
>>> IPv4, could you provide a filled in ripe-488 form?)
>>
>> Not sure I understand your question. I think that the assumption here
>> has been that addresses used will be part of your (aggregated) address
>> space.
> 
> Yes, exactly. So the RIPE NCC will essentialy be my End User here, and I
> will need to make a PA assignment to the pilot. Right?

That is a way of looking at it. :) I would argue that we are providing a
service to you and hence, you are a 'customer' of the RIPE NCC, not the
other way around. If you really can't sleep peacefully without the 488,
we're happy to send you one. I think I can find a colleague here that
would make it stick. ;-)

> If so, that means you will need to document your need for IPv4 address
> space just like any other customer of mine. This is done by filling out
> a ripe-488 form. That isn't necessary for IPv6 (as long as you don't
> require more than a /48). But I still need to know which prefix length
> you want on the link network. /64, /127, something else?

There's been some interesting (oh, well...) discussion on the merits and
risks of /64 and /126/127 on p-2-p links in various fora. No need to
re-iterate those here.

We'd prefer a /64. :)

> Wouldn't it have been ironic if I were to "fail" an LIR Audit because I
> lacked the mandatory documentation for a PA assignment made to the RIPE
> NCC? :-D

:)

For the moment (pilot phase), we will need a single address on the
service port and one on the management port. We might request an
additional address in a future phases of the project, so it might be
useful to have an additional address in reserve. No need to assign it
though. :)

Cheers,
Romeo

>> No routing requirements for the pilot. BGP for a K-root instance is
>> beyond the scope of the Atlas Anchor pilot. We are considering some
>> alternatives for the K-root setup that may or may not use BGP, but as
>> said, that's out of scope for this pilot.
> 
> Oh, then I have misunderstood. I was under the impression that a K-root
> instance was one of the launch services.
>