From david.kessens at nokia.com Sun May 1 11:00:26 2005 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 02:00:26 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE50 Message-ID: <20050501090026.GA6431@nokia.com> Please see below for the ipv6 working group agenda. David Kessens --- Interesting topics (from an ipv6 perspective) in the presentation sections: Monday, 2 May 2005 14:00-15:30 * Quality of Service Measurement in IPv6, Issues and Solutions (Alessandro Bassi, Hitachi) * How to set an Internet2 Land Speed Record (Anders Magnusson, Lulea Tekniska Universiteit) Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:00-17:30 * Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE50 When: Friday, 6 May 2005, 09:00 - 10:30 Where: C58, Clarion Hotel, Stockholm, SE A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Discussion on: Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) D. Revisiting the /48 recommendation (Gert Doering, Thomas Narten, David Kessens) Discussion, read rfc3177 as preparation E. Renumbering ipv6 networks (Stig Venaas, Tim Chown) F. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (input from the audience) G. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond - IPv6 - Advanced Network Developments's first year (Carlos Friacas) - 9K IPv6 Schools' Network Initiative (Carlos Friacas) - About the IPv6 Steering Commitee: (Carlos Friacas) - Point6 (http://www.point6.net/) (Francis Dupont) - New Operational IPv6 maillist: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ (Gert Doering) - ... H. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB --- From Bernard.Tuy at renater.fr Mon May 2 23:00:50 2005 From: Bernard.Tuy at renater.fr (Bernard Tuy) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 23:00:50 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE50 In-Reply-To: <20050501090026.GA6431@nokia.com> References: <20050501090026.GA6431@nokia.com> Message-ID: <42769502.8090900@renater.fr> ====BT: David, all I do love Gert's presentations but ... is it useful to have twice the same (on tuesday afternoon and on friday morning) unless the content is different with the same title ? Cheers, +Bernard T. PS: if you're missing a presentation, I can give a short talk on Renater tunnel broker service deployment (15 mn) ... --- David Kessens wrote: > Please see below for the ipv6 working group agenda. > > David Kessens > --- > > Interesting topics (from an ipv6 perspective) in the presentation sections: > > Monday, 2 May 2005 > 14:00-15:30 > > * Quality of Service Measurement in IPv6, Issues and Solutions > (Alessandro Bassi, Hitachi) > * How to set an Internet2 Land Speed Record > (Anders Magnusson, Lulea Tekniska Universiteit) > > Tuesday, 3 May 2005 > 16:00-17:30 > > * Global IPv6 routing table status > (Gert Doering) > --- > > Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE50 > > When: Friday, 6 May 2005, 09:00 - 10:30 > Where: C58, Clarion Hotel, Stockholm, SE > > A. Administrative stuff > - appointment of scribe > - agenda bashing > (David Kessens) > > B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services > (RIPE NCC) > > C. Discussion on: > Global IPv6 routing table status > (Gert Doering) > > D. Revisiting the /48 recommendation > (Gert Doering, Thomas Narten, David Kessens) > Discussion, read rfc3177 as preparation > > E. Renumbering ipv6 networks > (Stig Venaas, Tim Chown) > > F. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? > *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? > (input from the audience) > > G. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond > - IPv6 - Advanced Network Developments's first year > (Carlos Friacas) > - 9K IPv6 Schools' Network Initiative > (Carlos Friacas) > - About the IPv6 Steering Commitee: > (Carlos Friacas) > - Point6 (http://www.point6.net/) > (Francis Dupont) > - New Operational IPv6 maillist: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ > (Gert Doering) > - ... > > H. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan > (input from the audience) > > Z. AOB > --- From gert at space.net Tue May 3 09:43:36 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:43:36 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE50 In-Reply-To: <42769502.8090900@renater.fr> References: <20050501090026.GA6431@nokia.com> <42769502.8090900@renater.fr> Message-ID: <20050503074336.GX99476@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:00:50PM +0200, Bernard Tuy wrote: > ====BT: David, all > > I do love Gert's presentations but ... is it useful to have twice > the same (on tuesday afternoon and on friday morning) unless the content is > different with the same title ? The presentation will not be held on Friday. This is just "space for discussion" (in case more questions come up than can be handled on Tuesday). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 3 12:23:04 2005 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:23:04 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE50 In-Reply-To: <20050501090026.GA6431@nokia.com> References: <20050501090026.GA6431@nokia.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 May 2005, David Kessens wrote: > G. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond > - IPv6 - Advanced Network Developments's first year > (Carlos Friacas) > - 9K IPv6 Schools' Network Initiative > (Carlos Friacas) > - About the IPv6 Steering Commitee: > (Carlos Friacas) I would like to compact the first two into "IPv6 work at the portuguese NREN" (6 slides) and rename the third to "European IPv6 Task-Forces" (5 slides) Both are already available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/index.html Thanks, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!" From david.kessens at nokia.com Tue May 3 17:31:34 2005 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:31:34 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE50 In-Reply-To: References: <20050501090026.GA6431@nokia.com> Message-ID: <20050503153134.GF7527@nokia.com> Carlos, On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:23:04AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > > I would like to compact the first two into "IPv6 work at the portuguese > NREN" (6 slides) and rename the third to "European IPv6 Task-Forces" (5 > slides) > > Both are already available at > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/index.html Ok, I will make the change to the agenda during the agenda bashing. David Kessens --- From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed May 4 17:24:20 2005 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 16:24:20 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Glueing to the "."... Message-ID: Hi, As far as i know, the possibility of having AAAA glue records on the root zone was a long and hard quest... Now that we have it for some time, is it important to ask what is being done with this possibility??? Well, i do think YES... and by reading the DNS root zone what i can see is: - 42 ccTLDs glued - 4 gTLDs glued (.com, .int, .aeros, .net) - only 35 different servers/names with AAAAs on the root zone (NS0.JA.NET has 2!) - most of the TLDs supported by nameservers with AAAAs has only one or two. Should we expect an improvement in these numbers soon? :-) Comments...? ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!" From iljitsch at muada.com Thu May 5 22:54:28 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 22:54:28 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] HD ratio issues and revisiting /48 Message-ID: Consider this my input for tomorrow's discussion. I'm far away but I'll be with you guys in spirit. (And watching!) Ok, this message is becoming rather long. Skip to the end for the practical stuff if necessary. I believe Geoff's point with the presentation yesterday was "with only 45 bits to play with and considering the HD ratio IPv6 address space isn't as unlimited as it once seemed". The whole idea behind the HD ratio is that the more you have, the more you waste. And "more" isn't just more in absolute terms, but also in relative terms. Essentially an HD ratio of X percent says you'll waste X percent of your address bits. To some degree, this makes sense. If you have a flat numbering plan you need N numbers plus some wiggle room. But if you introduce a strictly hierarchical addressing plan, you need more wiggle room. For instance phone numbers we have in most European countries have area codes for cities and then subscriber numbers within each city. When phone numbers in Amsterdam run out, they can't borrow numbers from The Hague. So not only do we need wiggle room for both aggregation levels (national and city), but in phone numbers we also lose some serious number capacity because the boundary isn't very flexible. In the Netherlands even the smallest area codes hold 6 digit subscriber numbers. This eats up more numbers than when you can give the smallest area codes 5 digit numbers, or better yet, use 4.5 - 7 digit as needed. Now the interesting thing is that the HD ratio RFC (RFC 3194) is for a large part based on experiences with French phone numbers. It's easy to see that even though Alain Durand and Christian Huitema are obviously on to something, there must be a problem somewhere, as they write that the practical maximum (= HD ratio of 87%) utilization for IPv4 is 240 million addresses. (Actually that would be 211 million, they didn't compensate for class D and E and other unusable address space.) However, according to the most recent ISC host count were now at 317 million (= hosts present in the reverse DNS) while only 2.5 billion out of 3.7 billion usable IPv4 addresses have been allocated by IANA. So the current HD ratio for usable non-reserved IPv4 space is 90.5%, and this includes legacy space, so if we were to look at RIR space only, this would certainly be even higher. If we apply the same HD ratio to the remaining 1.2 billion addresses, we should be able to grow to 480 million IPv4 addresses in use without even taking legacy space issues into account. The HD ratio also doesn't account for the nature of the number hierarchy. In phone numbers or classful IPv4, you can't move the aggregation boundaries around. But with CIDR and VLSM (variable length subnet masks, at one point a great innovation), this is not a problem. So if you have 8 locations that need 100 - 800 addresses respectively, you don't need 8 x 1024 = 8192 addresses, but 128 + 256 + 3 x 512 + 3 x 1024 = 4992 addresses, or even 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7 * 128 = 4096 addresses. This will of course push some of the pain up the next aggregation level, as rather than a single route there will be 8 to 32 individual routes. When we cross over to inter-domain routing, this is clearly harmful since we are currently unable to aggregate in the interdomain routing space unless aggregation was already done (or at least possible) at the source AS. But for interior routing, this really isn't much of a problem. Even when routing a billion (2^30) /48s, that would boil down to: 2 levels, strict hierarchy: 2 * 2^15 routes 3 levels, strict hierarchy: 3 * 2^10 routes This is all very doable with today's hardware. Even if we assume a size difference of a factor 64 between the largest and the smallest entities in a loose hierarchy (ie. if Mexico City is your largest entity, the smallest would be a city with less than half a million people) that's 2^15 + 2^21 with two levels and 2^10 + 2^16 with three levels. Conclusion: you don't _have_ to lose one bit out of five as the allocated address space gets bigger. This also applies to interdomain routing. If you want to number 4 billion end-sites, Geoff's presentation lists a /8 as the prefix length of choice. But 4 billion also happens to be 256 * 16 million, and for 16 million we only need a /18. So 256 of those would be a / 10. We just saved 2 bits but now we have 256 /18s in the global routing table rather than one /8. But even someone who gets as much flack for not trusting the router vendors to come up with bigger boxes as me can appreciate that routing a larger number of /18s isn't going to kill BGP (there can only be 32 - 256 thousand /18 routes anyway). (With apologies for the thousand = 2^10 and million = 2^20.) !-!-!-! So where does this land us in the "create more wiggle room" debate? I think it's pretty clear that there is no immediate danger if we don't. On the other hand, if we can save some bits without real pain, why not do it? Going from /48 to /56 as a general recommendation would be one way to do that. Another way would be to keep the /48 for people who want it, but move the /64 to /60. It's practically impossible to utilize /128s in IPv6 (it can be done but it's just too painful and awkward). So: Now: /64 or /48 /56 idea: /64 or /56 /60 idea: /60 or /48 Giving everyone who needs address space a /60 rather than a /64 has the advantage that there is always room for a router. If my cell phone gets a /64, that's nice, but it means the phone has to bridge or proxy ND or some such. With a /60 I can have a subnet of my own for the bluetooth link, and another for the GPRS/UMTS link. Obviously this will increase the address consumption for people who would otherwise have gotten a /64, but even if there are many of those, that doesn't add up too badly. However, 95% of the people who would have gotten a /48 and 99% of the people who would have taken a / 56 would also be happy with a /60, and this would save a lot of address space. I also believe /60 vs /48 will make ISPs happier, as they're used to making SOHO/BigCu$tomer distinctions today and /60 vs /48 would pretty naturally fall into this. However, I stronly believe that EVERYONE who wants one and has an ISP who is reasonable should get a /48 no questions asked for the exact reasons that we have the "let them eat /48s" rule today. I would also suggest that all individual /48s would be registered in RIR databases. From ip at se.uu.net Fri May 6 10:44:00 2005 From: ip at se.uu.net (@UUNET SE Ip) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:44:00 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? Message-ID: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> Hi. Following the discussion about /48 boundaries I'd like a better definition of what a site is. My definition of an end-user site is the office where we (MCI/UUNET) install a circuit. This could be a large office or a small bransch office or anything in between. Each office is handled separately and they request IPv4 addresses per office. Adopting this to IPv6 it would mean that each office would get a /48. This is too much for many of them. Approx. 80-90% of our sites request 32 IP-addresses or less and most likely only subnet it 2 or 4 times if they ever subnet it. Furthermore we never get a complete network design for all branch offices if the customer is transnational or even national so we can't really assign a /48 to the customer for him to subnet among his offices. We can of course change our procedures to accomomodate thisbut this will make things a lot more difficult for us as a LIR and also the customer. We can't decide how many addresses to assign to a customer based on size or revenue. What I want is a clear definition of what a site is by having more catagories. but I don't want a floating boundary as catagories do simplyfies things. I also include my suggestions based on where I'm coming from :-) /60 for home networks (16 networks) /56 for enterprises (small/medium) (256 networks) /48 for large enterprises (65000 networks) /47 or more for "very large subscribers" /64 for mobile phones (w/ bluetooth or 802.11b) /128 for dialup PC Please note that I'm not a routing expert nor am I a experienced in the complete IPv6 concept with mobil users and consumers goods etc. My main area is IP-address administration. I administrate IP-networks for MCI/UUNET in almost all of Europe except DE, AT and CH. I haven't read the RFC's related to this so my mind is wide open ;-) Best regards Patrick Arkley Supervisor IP/DNS-team SKSC/SKRC MCI - Powered by UUNET Arm?gatan 38 S-171 04 Solna, Sweden Web: www.se.mci.com Phone direct: +46 (0)8 5661 7075 Fax: +46 (0)8 5661 7236 Mobile: +46 (0)733 11 20 75 VNET: 915-7075 E-mail: patrick.arkley at se.mci.com Initial Call team [VPN]: +46 (0)8 5661 7899 or emea-ip-vpn-initial-call at se.mci.com Registry: +46 (0)8 5661 7454 or registry at se.uu.net IP-team: +46 (0)8 5661 7629 or ip at se.uu.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeroen at unfix.org Fri May 6 11:12:20 2005 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 11:12:20 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> Message-ID: <1115370741.11260.8.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> [please don't post in HTML] On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 09:44 +0100, @UUNET SE Ip wrote: > Hi. > > Following the discussion about /48 boundaries I'd like a better > definition of what a site is. > > My definition of an end-user site is the office where we (MCI/UUNET) > install a circuit. This could be a large office or a small bransch > office or anything in between. This is the best way to target the 'what is a site'. Another way to approach it is saying that a site is a different site when it crosses an administrative border, aka the persons(s) operating that network is not equal to the other persons. > Each office is handled separately and they request IPv4 addresses per > office. Adopting this to IPv6 it would mean that each office would get > a /48. This is too much for many of them. At the moment that would indeed be way too much, but maybe in the future when every lightbulb gets an IP address and not forgetting that all the coffee and beertaps get one too ("Dear , I ran out of beer, resupply me"), then it will become easier to fill it up. Then again, a /48 is 65535 /64's. This thus means that a /48 has 65535 separate L2 networks in that site. Currently not thinkable indeed, but it does also size a small site to a very large one and accomodates all. > Approx. 80-90% of our sites request 32 IP-addresses or less and most > likely only subnet it 2 or 4 times if they ever subnet it. The question to ask here is, are they using those 32 IP's for servers and NAT the rest or do they use a firewall and give every box a public IP. If they are doing the latter it is not a hard guess how small these sites are :) > Furthermore we never get a complete network design for all branch > offices if the customer is transnational or even national so we can't > really assign a /48 to the customer for him to subnet among his > offices. We can of course change our procedures to accomomodate > thisbut this will make things a lot more difficult for us as a LIR and > also the customer. They are an endsite, you can easily guess they have most likely more than one network, thus you as a LIR give them a /48. No further thinking about it. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr Fri May 6 11:18:21 2005 From: Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 11:18:21 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 May 2005 09:44:00 BST. <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> Message-ID: <200505060918.j469ILLI042915@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: I also include my suggestions based on where I'm coming from :-) /60 for home networks (16 networks) => there are two reasons to use subnetting: - organization: this is in fact easy because stable/predictable and always handled by the manager - uncompatible links (like 802.11 and 1394): this will happen for home networking which should be handled automatically. With a hierarchical topology, the hD ratio should be good (~.8), with a mesh topology, random allocation of SLAs give a .5 value (cf birthday proble) for the HD ratio. Today we don't know how many links we'll get at the average but IMHO it should be 10~20 so /60 is clearly too small. BTW the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation will be very nice because it can negociate the really needed prefix length. I believe it'll save us for the home network case, which will be as I explained an hour ago the critical one because of its very large number. Regards Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri May 6 11:20:16 2005 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 11:20:16 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> Message-ID: Hi, I?ve not been able to attend RIPE this time, neither follow the streaming, so may be I missed something (if so, please point me to any relevant document) but my point of view is that we need to be much more flexible here about what we assign to each site. I don?t really think we need to define what is a site. We have attempted that so many times, that is clear that everyone can have their own view, and be right. The reasons why it was decided /48 had been explained several times in several foras, so I will not repeat that. Instead I want to make clear that I completely disagree with the /60 choice, and will much prefer to keep the /48 as today in RFC3177 (see also http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=604). This provides a good balance for the existing IPv6 addressing space for so many years, in my opinion that we will not need to worry about IP and instead may be we will have a totally different protocol by then. At the same time provides a broad enough perspective for deployment of Ambient Intelligence (Ubiquitous computing or whatever you like to call it), smarthomes, etc. I think choices such as being able to have a separate subnet (/64) for every service provider in a home is very important in terms of security and privacy. Note that I call here service provider not to the ISP (access provider), but for example the freezer manufacturer or maintenance service. I want to be able to have in different VLANs, for example, the manufacturer of the freezer and the washing machine. But also want to be able to provide a separate VLAN (again is just an example of a possible way to provide a service separation) for the supermarket that provides the fish, another for the one for the meat, milk, etc. Not allocating a /48 will increase the risk for renumbering when more and more services are being deployed. This is then creating an artificial barrier, and actually is not good for the ISPs, because they can?t easily increase and support the number of services which can be easily created with no addressing space restrictions, and that can bring NEW business to them, as they become service aggregators without increasing their management cost (but *increasing* revenues !). Of course this is also bad for the users. I really think considering this, 16 or 256 subnets is really extremely short and limiting. Regards, Jordi De: "@UUNET SE Ip" Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" Fecha: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:44:00 +0100 Para: "'ipv6-wg at ripe.net'" Asunto: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site? Hi. Following the discussion about /48 boundaries I'd like a better definition of what a site is. My definition of an end-user site is the office where we (MCI/UUNET) install a circuit. This could be a large office or a small bransch office or anything in between. Each office is handled separately and they request IPv4 addresses per office. Adopting this to IPv6 it would mean that each office would get a /48. This is too much for many of them. Approx. 80-90% of our sites request 32 IP-addresses or less and most likely only subnet it 2 or 4 times if they ever subnet it. Furthermore we never get a complete network design for all branch offices if the customer is transnational or even national so we can't really assign a /48 to the customer for him to subnet among his offices. We can of course change our procedures to accomomodate thisbut this will make things a lot more difficult for us as a LIR and also the customer. We can't decide how many addresses to assign to a customer based on size or revenue. What I want is a clear definition of what a site is by having more catagories. but I don't want a floating boundary as catagories do simplyfies things. I also include my suggestions based on where I'm coming from :-) /60 for home networks (16 networks) /56 for enterprises (small/medium) (256 networks) /48 for large enterprises (65000 networks) /47 or more for "very large subscribers" /64 for mobile phones (w/ bluetooth or 802.11b) /128 for dialup PC Please note that I'm not a routing expert nor am I a experienced in the complete IPv6 concept with mobil users and consumers goods etc. My main area is IP-address administration. I administrate IP-networks for MCI/UUNET in almost all of Europe except DE, AT and CH. I haven't read the RFC's related to this so my mind is wide open ;-) Best regards Patrick Arkley Supervisor IP/DNS-team SKSC/SKRC MCI - Powered by UUNET Arm?gatan 38 S-171 04 Solna, Sweden Web: www.se.mci.com Phone direct: +46 (0)8 5661 7075 Fax: +46 (0)8 5661 7236 Mobile: +46 (0)733 11 20 75 VNET: 915-7075 E-mail: patrick.arkley at se.mci.com Initial Call team [VPN]: +46 (0)8 5661 7899 or emea-ip-vpn-initial-call at se.mci.com Registry: +46 (0)8 5661 7454 or registry at se.uu.net IP-team: +46 (0)8 5661 7629 or ip at se.uu.net ************************************ Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Registration open. Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From iljitsch at muada.com Fri May 6 14:05:58 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:05:58 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> Message-ID: <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> On 6-mei-2005, at 10:44, @UUNET SE Ip wrote: > Following the discussion about /48 boundaries I'd like a better > definition of what a site is. This has been discussed in the IETF many times but there was never a clear answer... > My definition of an end-user site is the office where we (MCI/ > UUNET) install a circuit. This could be a large office or a small > bransch office or anything in between. > Each office is handled separately and they request IPv4 addresses > per office. Adopting this to IPv6 it would mean that each office > would get a /48. This is too much for many of them. > Approx. 80-90% of our sites request 32 IP-addresses or less and > most likely only subnet it 2 or 4 times if they ever subnet it. Right. > What I want is a clear definition of what a site is by having more > catagories. but I don't want a floating boundary as catagories do > simplyfies things. > I also include my suggestions based on where I'm coming from :-) > /60 for home networks (16 networks) > /56 for enterprises (small/medium) (256 networks) > /48 for large enterprises (65000 networks) > /47 or more for "very large subscribers" > /64 for mobile phones (w/ bluetooth or 802.11b) > /128 for dialup PC So that's 6 possible choices. If we assume that really big assignments will always be possible using non-standard procedures, we can ignore the > /48 case so that's 5 choices. The /128 for a dial-up system doesn't work in practice. In IPv4, you can get an IP address during PPP negotiations. In IPv6, this isn't possible. So you either need to run DHCPv6 or stateless autoconfiguration over the PPP link. Both require a subnet of some sort. So assuming we don't want to mess around with < /64 subnets / 128s are out and we're at 4 choices: /64 /60 /56 /48 The /64 fulfills an obvious need: instances where only a single subnet is needed. However, I'm not sure this happens as often as people think. The idea behind a subnet is that you can have more than one device in it. The way dial-up works today, you get a single IPv4 address. If we turn this into a subnet for IPv6, this doesn't make it possible to add more devices, as the subnet is used between the ISP router and the system connected to the ISP link. You really need an address for the ISP link and _then_ a subnet for ethernet/wifi/ bluetooth so more devices can share the link. (Jordi seems to want to give out subnets to (more or less) individual systems. I think that's a mistake. The trend the past decade has been to move away from different physical subnets. Having different logical subnets means management, and most networks are going to be unmanaged so that won't work. I also don't see the benefit.) The /48 also fulfills a need: large networks such as universities, hospitals, enterprises with different locations that are interconnected over private networks and so on. Now the question is: what are the users for a /56 or /60? My opinion: The /60 is very suitable for simple SOHO networks with a single router and no requirement for long-term stable addresses. With DHCPv6 prefix delegation such a router can obtain such a prefix from an ISP dynamically, so there wouldn't be any reason for manual setup on the customer side. (When implemented right renumbering can be completely transparent here.) A /60 is more than enough for a handful of subnets, such as the situation where there are different networks for wifi/ethernet or private/dmz or ethernet/ieee1394 (Windows XP seems to be able to bridge between the two, though) or a combination. There are obviously some limitations. While a /60 allows for some subnetting, you really can't do dynamic prefix delegation with a high success rate as soon as a second router enters the picture. So this setup isn't suitable for serious subnetting. However, note that today, SOHO users DO NOT subnet. Most SOHO gateways can't even act as real routers! There is no evidence that the majority of all SOHO users needs more than two to four subnets within the forseeable future. I assert that anyone who needs more than 10 subnets has a good chance of needing more than 256 at some point as well, and barring the creation of new technology, managing these subnets must be done manually so having to renumber because the number of subnets is too small will be rather painful. So giving people 256 subnets will give them the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot by using up 250 of them and then having to renumber. (Since all we're doing here is come up with delegation guidelines that aren't set into stone or even code, we don't have to be careful about allowing for future developments either: when technologies that require more subnets become available, we can simply revisit these guidelines.) So: - forget /128 as it can't be done in practice - try to move away from /64 as it isn't very useful - give out a /60 to SOHO users with a single router and no special requirements, these prefixes may be (semi-)dynamic if required or desired - give out a /48 to anyone who asks for it, these prefixes should be static if at all possible Giving everyone who "needs" a /64 a /60 doesn't lead to significant address depletion. Even if we assume that all 10 billion Earthlings (this will be the peak at around 2050 as per current population projections) use 10 "large" and 100 "small" networks, this means: 100 billion large ~= 37 bits * .8 HD = 46 bits 1 trillion small ~= 40 bits * .8 HD = 50 bits So even with a /60 the "small" networks only use up a /10 while the "large" networks would use up a /2 for /48. Also, we should definately not skimp on giving /48s to people who want them, even if we think that they don't have a good reason for wanting them: even without any action we can (just about) accommodate 10 of those each for 10 billion people. Not giving them to people who _don't_ ask for them should give us more than enough breathing room. Final note: please let's leave the 64 interface identifier alone. Not only is this very hard to change even with today's limited deployment, but also this is our insurance for when things get really tough. Slicing and dicing /64 is also best done per-site, as it isn't visible globally. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri May 6 14:41:36 2005 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 14:41:36 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> Message-ID: Hi, Just one clarification. I was only trying to make an example, probably not the best one. The idea is that a subnet is not used for a single device, of course, but for a single set of them which are related, for example in terms of who is accessing that network. So the clarified example will be: If the same service provider (probably the manufacturer but it may be also a third party company, even the ISP itself) is responsible for keeping the maintenance of the freezer and the washing machine and the dish washing machine, they could be allocated in a single subnet, but a different one that the supermarket that will refill my beverage in the freezer, and a different one that will refill the fish. Regarding your view of allowing a /60, I think if we want to go into that direction is better to seek for a /56 or even better, a /52. But I'm still convinced that we should stay with /48. Today SOHOs doesn't subnet because the need has not come thanks, unfortunately to NAT, which avoided the creation of innovation around Internet (those new services and applications that will come with IPv6 and end-to-end restoration). Regards, Jordi > De: Iljitsch van Beijnum > Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" > Fecha: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:05:58 +0200 > Para: "@UUNET SE Ip" > CC: "'ipv6-wg at ripe.net'" > Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site? > > On 6-mei-2005, at 10:44, @UUNET SE Ip wrote: > >> Following the discussion about /48 boundaries I'd like a better >> definition of what a site is. > > This has been discussed in the IETF many times but there was never a > clear answer... > >> My definition of an end-user site is the office where we (MCI/ >> UUNET) install a circuit. This could be a large office or a small >> bransch office or anything in between. >> Each office is handled separately and they request IPv4 addresses >> per office. Adopting this to IPv6 it would mean that each office >> would get a /48. This is too much for many of them. >> Approx. 80-90% of our sites request 32 IP-addresses or less and >> most likely only subnet it 2 or 4 times if they ever subnet it. > > Right. > >> What I want is a clear definition of what a site is by having more >> catagories. but I don't want a floating boundary as catagories do >> simplyfies things. > >> I also include my suggestions based on where I'm coming from :-) >> /60 for home networks (16 networks) >> /56 for enterprises (small/medium) (256 networks) >> /48 for large enterprises (65000 networks) >> /47 or more for "very large subscribers" >> /64 for mobile phones (w/ bluetooth or 802.11b) >> /128 for dialup PC > > So that's 6 possible choices. If we assume that really big > assignments will always be possible using non-standard procedures, we > can ignore the > /48 case so that's 5 choices. > > The /128 for a dial-up system doesn't work in practice. In IPv4, you > can get an IP address during PPP negotiations. In IPv6, this isn't > possible. So you either need to run DHCPv6 or stateless > autoconfiguration over the PPP link. Both require a subnet of some > sort. So assuming we don't want to mess around with < /64 subnets / > 128s are out and we're at 4 choices: > > /64 > /60 > /56 > /48 > > The /64 fulfills an obvious need: instances where only a single > subnet is needed. However, I'm not sure this happens as often as > people think. The idea behind a subnet is that you can have more than > one device in it. The way dial-up works today, you get a single IPv4 > address. If we turn this into a subnet for IPv6, this doesn't make it > possible to add more devices, as the subnet is used between the ISP > router and the system connected to the ISP link. You really need an > address for the ISP link and _then_ a subnet for ethernet/wifi/ > bluetooth so more devices can share the link. > > (Jordi seems to want to give out subnets to (more or less) individual > systems. I think that's a mistake. The trend the past decade has been > to move away from different physical subnets. Having different > logical subnets means management, and most networks are going to be > unmanaged so that won't work. I also don't see the benefit.) > > The /48 also fulfills a need: large networks such as universities, > hospitals, enterprises with different locations that are > interconnected over private networks and so on. > > Now the question is: what are the users for a /56 or /60? > > My opinion: > > The /60 is very suitable for simple SOHO networks with a single > router and no requirement for long-term stable addresses. With DHCPv6 > prefix delegation such a router can obtain such a prefix from an ISP > dynamically, so there wouldn't be any reason for manual setup on the > customer side. (When implemented right renumbering can be completely > transparent here.) A /60 is more than enough for a handful of > subnets, such as the situation where there are different networks for > wifi/ethernet or private/dmz or ethernet/ieee1394 (Windows XP seems > to be able to bridge between the two, though) or a combination. > > There are obviously some limitations. While a /60 allows for some > subnetting, you really can't do dynamic prefix delegation with a high > success rate as soon as a second router enters the picture. So this > setup isn't suitable for serious subnetting. However, note that > today, SOHO users DO NOT subnet. Most SOHO gateways can't even act as > real routers! There is no evidence that the majority of all SOHO > users needs more than two to four subnets within the forseeable future. > > I assert that anyone who needs more than 10 subnets has a good chance > of needing more than 256 at some point as well, and barring the > creation of new technology, managing these subnets must be done > manually so having to renumber because the number of subnets is too > small will be rather painful. So giving people 256 subnets will give > them the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot by using up 250 > of them and then having to renumber. > > (Since all we're doing here is come up with delegation guidelines > that aren't set into stone or even code, we don't have to be careful > about allowing for future developments either: when technologies that > require more subnets become available, we can simply revisit these > guidelines.) > > So: > > - forget /128 as it can't be done in practice > - try to move away from /64 as it isn't very useful > - give out a /60 to SOHO users with a single router and no special > requirements, these prefixes may be (semi-)dynamic if required or > desired > - give out a /48 to anyone who asks for it, these prefixes should be > static if at all possible > > Giving everyone who "needs" a /64 a /60 doesn't lead to significant > address depletion. Even if we assume that all 10 billion Earthlings > (this will be the peak at around 2050 as per current population > projections) use 10 "large" and 100 "small" networks, this means: > > 100 billion large ~= 37 bits * .8 HD = 46 bits > 1 trillion small ~= 40 bits * .8 HD = 50 bits > > So even with a /60 the "small" networks only use up a /10 while the > "large" networks would use up a /2 for /48. > > Also, we should definately not skimp on giving /48s to people who > want them, even if we think that they don't have a good reason for > wanting them: even without any action we can (just about) accommodate > 10 of those each for 10 billion people. Not giving them to people who > _don't_ ask for them should give us more than enough breathing room. > > Final note: please let's leave the 64 interface identifier alone. Not > only is this very hard to change even with today's limited > deployment, but also this is our insurance for when things get really > tough. Slicing and dicing /64 is also best done per-site, as it isn't > visible globally. > ************************************ Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Registration open. Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From iljitsch at muada.com Fri May 6 14:49:48 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:49:48 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6-mei-2005, at 14:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > So the clarified example will be: If the > same service provider (probably the manufacturer but it may be also > a third > party company, even the ISP itself) is responsible for keeping the > maintenance of the freezer and the washing machine and the dish > washing > machine, they could be allocated in a single subnet, but a > different one > that the supermarket that will refill my beverage in the freezer, > and a > different one that will refill the fish. Why?? What is the advantage of having the washing machine and the freezer in different subnets? You didn't have to quote my entire message, btw. I still remember what it said... From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri May 6 15:01:30 2005 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 15:01:30 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just one more possibility of increasing privacy and security. Depending on who is the service provider, is up to the user to decide if they want to allow other service providers to access that information or not, and we should technically facilitate it, right ? If we start increasing the difficulties of making new things possible, we will end up repeating the IPv4 mistakes. The mistake here is limiting address space and subneting possibilities to be easily managed. >From both, the ISP and customer perspective, is much easier managing a flat network were everyone has /48 instead of having different "classes" of customers, because the goal is not to charge because you have or use /60 or /48, but because you use this or that bandwidth and/or this number of services, just like cable or satellite TV. You have a base service which doesn't limit you how many channels you have (technical limitations apart, of course), and you can in addition contract a set of services for your kids, sports, films, etc. But up-front, the base service doesn't limit what else you can buy ! Regards, Jordi > De: Iljitsch van Beijnum > Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" > Fecha: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:49:48 +0200 > Para: > CC: > Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site? > > On 6-mei-2005, at 14:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> So the clarified example will be: If the >> same service provider (probably the manufacturer but it may be also >> a third >> party company, even the ISP itself) is responsible for keeping the >> maintenance of the freezer and the washing machine and the dish >> washing >> machine, they could be allocated in a single subnet, but a >> different one >> that the supermarket that will refill my beverage in the freezer, >> and a >> different one that will refill the fish. > > Why?? > > What is the advantage of having the washing machine and the freezer > in different subnets? > > You didn't have to quote my entire message, btw. I still remember > what it said... > ************************************ Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Registration open. Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From iljitsch at muada.com Fri May 6 15:23:18 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:23:18 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <052D4F9E-8EDA-44F2-ABBD-19C3217732F9@muada.com> On 6-mei-2005, at 15:01, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Just one more possibility of increasing privacy and security. You don't need separate subnets for that. There are security features in switches that make all traffic between hosts in the same IP subnet flow through the switch. And as I said before, this isn't going to work anyway, as having separate physical subnets for so many devices is too much to ask and logical subnets are either hard to set up or easy to get around, or both. One subnet for non-trusted stuff and a subnet for your own stuff would be better, IMO. Protecting the washer from sniffing by the fridge seems peculiar to say the least, and is better done with TLS/ IPsec anyway. > Depending on who is the service provider, is up to the user to > decide if > they want to allow other service providers to access that > information or > not, and we should technically facilitate it, right ? If we start > increasing > the difficulties of making new things possible, we will end up > repeating the > IPv4 mistakes. If we throw away most of our address bits on stuff that doesn't need it we'll be repeating IPv4 mistakes too. :-) > The mistake here is limiting address space and subneting > possibilities to be > easily managed. I think doing /60 now and changing this when it becomes necessary makes sense. We're not closing any doors by giving out /60s. > From both, the ISP and customer perspective, is much easier > managing a flat > network were everyone has /48 instead of having different "classes" of > customers, Yes, that's why we need to have as few classes as possible. I think saving 12 bits for 95% of al users is worth having two classes rather than 1, though. > because the goal is not to charge because you have or use /60 or > /48, but because you use this or that bandwidth and/or this number of > services, just like cable or satellite TV. That's what you think, but you don't run an ISP... This is a tough business where you take the nickles where you can get them. Paying for bandwidth isn't very popular, and the whole point of the internet is that you can get your services from anywhere. And really, you don't have to quote my entire previous message, I still know what I wrote. From iljitsch at muada.com Fri May 6 21:47:00 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 21:47:00 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> Message-ID: <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> Let me try to make most of my point somewhat more concisely: In programming, there are only three values: zero, one and many. What we need to do is come up with a good prefix size for networks that: - have no router - have one router - have multiple routers From pim at ipng.nl Sat May 7 09:50:57 2005 From: pim at ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:50:57 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> Hi, | In programming, there are only three values: zero, one and many. Good point. | What we need to do is come up with a good prefix size for networks that: | | - have no router /64 | - have one router /48 | - have multiple routers /48 I am quite happy with the current practice. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim at ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From iljitsch at muada.com Sat May 7 12:59:44 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 12:59:44 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> Message-ID: On 7-mei-2005, at 9:50, Pim van Pelt wrote: > | In programming, there are only three values: zero, one and many. > Good point. :-) > | What we need to do is come up with a good prefix size for > networks that: > | - have no router > /64 > | - have one router > /48 > | - have multiple routers > /48 > I am quite happy with the current practice. Hm, I see the current situation more as /128 - /64 - /48. I agree that the last one should remain a /48. The /128 isn't workable in practice because we don't have mechanisms that can assign individual /128s like PPP IPCP in IPv4. Having /64s for networks with a router doesn't work that well because routers always have two links. Having a /48 for a very small network with one router also isn't the greatest idea ever as we may burn IPv6 addresses uncomfortably fast. See Geoff's presentation this week at the RIPE meeting: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/ presentations/uploads/Wednesday/huston-ipv6_roundtable_report.pdf The video may be online in an archive but I don't know where. I think the best way to solve this is move the /64 recommendation to / 60. This will use up more address space for people who would have used a /64, but it will save a lot on people who only have a single router and no subnets or just a handful, who would get a /48 in the current situation. From iljitsch at muada.com Mon May 9 11:37:53 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:37:53 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net > <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> Message-ID: <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> On 9-mei-2005, at 9:17, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > and the other view: > /60 -> /52 (for networks with no router and networks with one router) Giving a /52 to networks that don't have a router has the potential to burn v6 space rather quickly. (Today those networks would get a /64.) And why would a SOHO (small office, home office) or residential network with just a single router need 4096 subnets (/52) rather than 256 (/56) or 16 (/60)? If they really need that many subnets it's probably better to stick at the current /48 recommendation. Iljitsch -- Iljitsch van Beijnum - http://www.bgpexpert.com/ (updated: May 6, 22:39:15) From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon May 9 12:11:30 2005 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:11:30 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> I think it's important we give networks fixed size prefixes to lessen the need for restructuring and renumbering when changing provider. So I would say /64, /48, /48. The ISP's who have got the /20-ish space already have planned this, I suspect. It's the ones trying to run an ISP off a /32 that haven't? On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 9-mei-2005, at 9:17, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > > >and the other view: > > >/60 -> /52 > > (for networks with no router and networks with one router) > > Giving a /52 to networks that don't have a router has the potential > to burn v6 space rather quickly. (Today those networks would get a /64.) > > And why would a SOHO (small office, home office) or residential > network with just a single router need 4096 subnets (/52) rather than > 256 (/56) or 16 (/60)? > > If they really need that many subnets it's probably better to stick > at the current /48 recommendation. > > Iljitsch > > -- > Iljitsch van Beijnum - http://www.bgpexpert.com/ (updated: May 6, > 22:39:15) -- Tim/::1 From dr at cluenet.de Mon May 9 12:23:40 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:23:40 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20050509102340.GA24315@srv01.cluenet.de> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:11:30AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote: > I think it's important we give networks fixed size prefixes to lessen > the need for restructuring and renumbering when changing provider. Agreed. And this prefix size should really be on nibble boundaries (but I guess noone disagrees with that). > So I would say /64, /48, /48. > > The ISP's who have got the /20-ish space already have planned this, > I suspect. It's the ones trying to run an ISP off a /32 that haven't? Even with /32 you can nicely run a typical access ISP with. You need more if you have any serious mass subscriber base, like residential DSL, 3G/GPRS etc. The large-size allocation to which I was involved with designing the addressing plan definately plans to give every customer a /48, even if no routed infrastructure is in place at the customer yet. Assign /48 and route first /64 out of it initially. If customer wants more, route the rest of the /48 to the customer. This works for hosting customers as well as any leased line access customer. Also for "dialup" like PPPoE/A DSL (RADIUS). I ponder wether it would make sense to write up an example addressing plan for a /32 standard allocation which people can use as a template... Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From gert at space.net Mon May 9 12:40:37 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:40:37 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:11:30AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote: > I think it's important we give networks fixed size prefixes to lessen > the need for restructuring and renumbering when changing provider. > > So I would say /64, /48, /48. > > The ISP's who have got the /20-ish space already have planned this, > I suspect. It's the ones trying to run an ISP off a /32 that haven't? The base for this discussion isn't "an ISP that has badly planned their /32", it's Geoff Houstons estimations about how long the IPv6 address space will last, given current boundary conditions (HD ratio of 0.8, and /48-per-site). People that haven't looked at the presentation: please do so, *before* entering a heated argument without all relevant background information as for *why* we are having this discussion. Geoff's slides are here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/plenary-program-wednesday.html -> "A report from the ARIN XV IPv6 round table" -> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-ipv6-roundtable-report.pdf Personally, I opt for a /128+/64+/56+/48 model, with a suffiently relaxed policy that permits /48 assignments to anything that risks being limited by 256 subnets. So typical large-scale DSL rollouts can be provisioned on an automated base with /56s, providing enough space for 99.99% of all customers ("pick another arbitrary number"). As for the /128s: I think that providing a /64 for a dialup router, negotiating unique host-IDs with incoming PPP clients and then sending RAs for the "shared" /64 down the PPP links will work fine for /128 (auto-)assignment. I'm not sure, though, whether that's fully backed by all relevant specs. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From gert at space.net Mon May 9 12:46:12 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:46:12 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509102340.GA24315@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509102340.GA24315@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050509104612.GQ84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:23:40PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > I ponder wether it would make sense to write up an example addressing > plan for a /32 standard allocation which people can use as a template... It would definitely be a nice thing to have. Maybe even as an official RIPE BCP document? (Which means that you don't have to host it, if you don't want, and you can get editorial support from the NCC people - which is a big plus for us non-native speakers :-) ). Gert Doering -- AP WG co-chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From iljitsch at muada.com Mon May 9 12:53:52 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:53:52 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <9841C2F5-8D65-4CC3-9B37-823A38616B7A@muada.com> On 9-mei-2005, at 12:40, Gert Doering wrote: > As for the /128s: I think that providing a /64 for a dialup router, > negotiating unique host-IDs with incoming PPP clients and then sending > RAs for the "shared" /64 down the PPP links will work fine for /128 > (auto-)assignment. I'm not sure, though, whether that's fully backed > by all relevant specs. I don't understand what you mean here... Suppose: host1 host2 +---------------+ +--------------------+ | / |ISP dial-up box+-ppp-+customer dial-up box+---customer subnet +---------------+ +--------------------+ | \ host4 host3 So the ISP and customer boxes negotiate interface identifiers. So far so good. But if the ISP box now starts sending out RAs, how do hosts 1 - 4 know this? For this to work the customer box must be a bridge and not a router, but this negates the whole idea behind the two boxes on opposite ends of the PPP link negotiating interface identifiers... What you need is a subnet for the PPP link and _another_ subnet for the customer's other stuff. This can be done with DHCPv6 prefix delegation, I think, but not with regular RAs. From iljitsch at muada.com Mon May 9 13:04:54 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:04:54 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509104612.GQ84850@Space.Net> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509102340.GA24315@srv01.cluenet.de> <20050509104612.GQ84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <60693F60-F8ED-4629-BF73-A1F25954C964@muada.com> On 9-mei-2005, at 12:46, Gert Doering wrote: >> I ponder wether it would make sense to write up an example addressing >> plan for a /32 standard allocation which people can use as a >> template... > It would definitely be a nice thing to have. This is what I came up with for two customers who are beginning IPv6 deployment. It works both for DSL and colocation. - assign each customer a 16-bit number (starting at 20 or so) - for each customer, use a dedicated /64 for between your/their stuff, like 2001:db8:a:::/64 - use the ...1 address on your end, such as 2001:db8:a:::1 - route a /48 to the ...2 address, such as 2001:db8:::/48 to 2001:db8:a:::2 - send router advertisements so hosts in the /64 can autoconfigure Customers can now either use just the /64 with autoconfiguration or the /48 but then they need to set up an IPv6 router. This is not as transparent as I'd like it to be, and it's also kind of wasteful because it uses up a /48 for every customer even if they're not going to use it. But I think simplicity is key here, at least at this point in time when the stuff isn't as automatic as it could be. Having a / 64 per customer is useful because that way you know which address goes with which customer. If you set up a shared /64 on a shared subnet you don't know which customer has which address. From gert at space.net Mon May 9 13:05:37 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:05:37 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <9841C2F5-8D65-4CC3-9B37-823A38616B7A@muada.com> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> <9841C2F5-8D65-4CC3-9B37-823A38616B7A@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050509110537.GS84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:53:52PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 9-mei-2005, at 12:40, Gert Doering wrote: > > >As for the /128s: I think that providing a /64 for a dialup router, > >negotiating unique host-IDs with incoming PPP clients and then sending > >RAs for the "shared" /64 down the PPP links will work fine for /128 > >(auto-)assignment. I'm not sure, though, whether that's fully backed > >by all relevant specs. > > I don't understand what you mean here... Suppose: > > host1 host2 > +---------------+ +--------------------+ | / > |ISP dial-up box+-ppp-+customer dial-up box+---customer subnet > +---------------+ +--------------------+ | \ > host4 host3 This is not the scenario where /128 would be used for. +---------------+ +---------------------+ |ISP dial-up box+-ppp-+customer dial-up HOST+ +---------------+ +---------------------+ is. For a LAN connection, using a /64 or larger is pretty much a no-brainer. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From iljitsch at muada.com Mon May 9 13:16:48 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:16:48 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509110537.GS84850@Space.Net> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> <9841C2F5-8D65-4CC3-9B37-823A38616B7A@muada.com> <20050509110537.GS84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 9-mei-2005, at 13:05, Gert Doering wrote: >> host1 host2 >> +---------------+ +--------------------+ | / >> |ISP dial-up box+-ppp-+customer dial-up box+---customer subnet >> +---------------+ +--------------------+ | \ >> host4 host3 > This is not the scenario where /128 would be used for. Right, I got the /64 and /128 problems mixed up. The above shows that a /64 is problematic. :-) But how would a /128 work? > +---------------+ +---------------------+ > |ISP dial-up box+-ppp-+customer dial-up HOST+ > +---------------+ +---------------------+ Stateless autoconfiguration only works on /64s because it needs a 64 bit interface identifier. DHCPv6 would probably not work either, because the router and the local address need to share a subnet. From gert at space.net Mon May 9 13:30:46 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:30:46 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> <9841C2F5-8D65-4CC3-9B37-823A38616B7A@muada.com> <20050509110537.GS84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050509113046.GU84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:16:48PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >This is not the scenario where /128 would be used for. > > Right, I got the /64 and /128 problems mixed up. > > The above shows that a /64 is problematic. :-) Only if you assume numbered PPP links. Which is no way mandatory (nor useful towards single-LAN customers). > But how would a /128 work? > > >+---------------+ +---------------------+ > >|ISP dial-up box+-ppp-+customer dial-up HOST+ > >+---------------+ +---------------------+ > > Stateless autoconfiguration only works on /64s because it needs a 64 > bit interface identifier. So? Please re-read what I wrote. IPv6CP negotiates a host-ID - if the "ISP dial-up box" makes sure that all customer host IDs connecting to it are unique, you have unique interface identifiers. Then send the same (!) /64 RA on all links. Each host will assign itself a unique IP address, and send packets for all other addresses in the /64 towards the ISP (remember: this is a point-to-point link, there is no other way to send it to). The ISP router needs a bit more brains, but not very much so. (This is conceptually not overly different from the way IPv4 DHCP works on DSL lines in some bridged-mode deployments today - all DSL lines share a "virtual" bridged /24 or similar, so you don't need a /30 per DSL customer) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr Mon May 9 13:38:09 2005 From: Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 13:38:09 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 May 2005 21:47:00 +0200. <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> Message-ID: <200505091138.j49Bc91h058141@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: Let me try to make most of my point somewhat more concisely: In programming, there are only three values: zero, one and many. What we need to do is come up with a good prefix size for networks that: - have no router => /64 for the connection link itself. - have one router => it depends on the number of links behind but it seems that /60 is right. - have multiple routers => if the topology is complex (HD ratio ~ 0.5) and the number of links ~ 10 then a /56 is right. IMHO the best is to authorize a /56 in all cases (i.e., move from /48 to /56 for common home networks) and leave DHCPv6 PD negociates the right value, "up to" /56. Regards Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr From Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr Mon May 9 13:42:46 2005 From: Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 13:42:46 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 09 May 2005 12:53:52 +0200. <9841C2F5-8D65-4CC3-9B37-823A38616B7A@muada.com> Message-ID: <200505091142.j49BgkNX058207@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: What you need is a subnet for the PPP link and _another_ subnet for the customer's other stuff. This can be done with DHCPv6 prefix delegation, I think, but not with regular RAs. => yes, this is exactly what is described in the Cisco white paper about DHCPv6 PD. Regards Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr From dr at cluenet.de Mon May 9 14:00:58 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:00:58 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509113046.GU84850@Space.Net> References: <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> <9841C2F5-8D65-4CC3-9B37-823A38616B7A@muada.com> <20050509110537.GS84850@Space.Net> <20050509113046.GU84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050509120058.GA25430@srv01.cluenet.de> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:30:46PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > The above shows that a /64 is problematic. :-) > > Only if you assume numbered PPP links. Which is no way mandatory > (nor useful towards single-LAN customers). Actually, it is very useful as you can monitor IP reachability of the CPE (WAN line) without having to care wether the LAN port is up&running (customer responsibility). I've seen both setups side-by side in 24/7 NOC operation and I can assure you that unnumbered LAN links suck hard if you have customers who switch off their office switch/hub every night. You never know wether there is an actual outage or just customer playing with his LAN. And you cannot even log into the CPE as the only IP address the CPE has is the LAN interface... which might be down and thus unreachable (at least in the Cisco CPE case). So overall: bad idea to run customer links unnumbered. IMHO. YMMV. > (This is conceptually not overly different from the way IPv4 DHCP > works on DSL lines in some bridged-mode deployments today - all DSL > lines share a "virtual" bridged /24 or similar, so you don't need > a /30 per DSL customer) Yes, and that sucks from security point of view. Technology has advanced. Why repeat the same mistakes the cable folks did? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From dr at cluenet.de Mon May 9 14:10:08 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:10:08 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050509121008.GB25430@srv01.cluenet.de> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:40:37PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Personally, I opt for a /128+/64+/56+/48 model, with a suffiently relaxed > policy that permits /48 assignments to anything that risks being limited > by 256 subnets. > > So typical large-scale DSL rollouts can be provisioned on an automated > base with /56s, providing enough space for 99.99% of all customers > ("pick another arbitrary number"). I do agree that /56s will be enough for almost all customers. But then you will see scenarious that people outgrow the /56 and need a new /48 and renumber AND restructure their network into this new space. THIS is what "/48 for everone" is trying to prevent as much as possible. Reserving a /48 space but only assigning /56 makes no sense either. A /56 is 256 subnets only if ignoring ANY hierarchy. If you accept 2-3 levels of hierachy into the customer network, your efficiency goes down, and 8bits of subnetting starts to smell v4ish again. I could probably agree to /56 for residential access though. But definately not for non-residential access like non-miniature companies, universities etc. Do we really gain enough by going down to /56 that is worth the hassle? IMHO, changing the HD-Ratio is a better idea, with no downside I can currently see (can anyone?). Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From gert at space.net Mon May 9 14:20:18 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:20:18 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509121008.GB25430@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> <20050509121008.GB25430@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050509122018.GW84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:10:08PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > I could probably agree to /56 for residential access though. But > definately not for non-residential access like non-miniature companies, > universities etc. That's the aim. > Do we really gain enough by going down to /56 that is worth the hassle? I'd say so. Assuming "everybody is always-on at home" (with "few" subnets there), this will be the LARGE majority of subscribers - and being able to increase that number by 256 sounds like "significant gain" to me. > IMHO, changing the HD-Ratio is a better idea, with no downside I can > currently see (can anyone?). It would be quite useful to see the efficiency of large-block-holders' network plans, to base judgment on the target HD ratio on the reasonably achievable efficiency in real-world network plans. Making the HD ratio overly tight ("0.99") would mean "destroying potential internal aggregation", and that's a bad thing to do. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Mon May 9 14:50:11 2005 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 14:50:11 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509121008.GB25430@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: Fully agree with this view. I think if we really want to go into this direction, the HD ratio modification seems a better idea. I actually have already thought long time ago that we can't compare in terms of efficiency IPv4 with IPv6, so no reason for keeping the same ratio. Regards, Jordi > De: Daniel Roesen > Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" > Fecha: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:10:08 +0200 > Para: > Asunto: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site? > > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:40:37PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> Personally, I opt for a /128+/64+/56+/48 model, with a suffiently relaxed >> policy that permits /48 assignments to anything that risks being limited >> by 256 subnets. >> >> So typical large-scale DSL rollouts can be provisioned on an automated >> base with /56s, providing enough space for 99.99% of all customers >> ("pick another arbitrary number"). > > I do agree that /56s will be enough for almost all customers. But then > you will see scenarious that people outgrow the /56 and need a new /48 > and renumber AND restructure their network into this new space. THIS is > what "/48 for everone" is trying to prevent as much as possible. > Reserving a /48 space but only assigning /56 makes no sense either. A > /56 is 256 subnets only if ignoring ANY hierarchy. If you accept 2-3 > levels of hierachy into the customer network, your efficiency goes down, > and 8bits of subnetting starts to smell v4ish again. > > I could probably agree to /56 for residential access though. But > definately not for non-residential access like non-miniature companies, > universities etc. > > Do we really gain enough by going down to /56 that is worth the hassle? > > IMHO, changing the HD-Ratio is a better idea, with no downside I can > currently see (can anyone?). > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -- > CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 > ************************************ Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Registration open. Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From gert at space.net Mon May 9 14:55:35 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:55:35 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <20050509121008.GB25430@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:50:11PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Fully agree with this view. > > I think if we really want to go into this direction, the HD ratio > modification seems a better idea. I actually have already thought long time > ago that we can't compare in terms of efficiency IPv4 with IPv6, so no > reason for keeping the same ratio. Why do you assume that the achievable efficiency isn't comparable? IPv6 has some bonuses ("all end-customer networks have the same size") and some drawbacks ("you need to achieve a much higher aggregation level if your internal routing system is ever going to cope with the sheer number of customer networks"), so overall efficiency "should" be similar. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Mon May 9 19:30:48 2005 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 19:30:48 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert, Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks. I think this improves the efficiency. Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs). Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, again, to the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-( On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that might last for "only" 60-100 years? I don't really think so, as it will be probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional reasons (may be will not be IP at all). Regards, Jordi > De: Gert Doering > Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" > Fecha: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:55:35 +0200 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > CC: > Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site? > > Hi, > > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:50:11PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Fully agree with this view. >> >> I think if we really want to go into this direction, the HD ratio >> modification seems a better idea. I actually have already thought long time >> ago that we can't compare in terms of efficiency IPv4 with IPv6, so no >> reason for keeping the same ratio. > > Why do you assume that the achievable efficiency isn't comparable? > > IPv6 has some bonuses ("all end-customer networks have the same size") > and some drawbacks ("you need to achieve a much higher aggregation level > if your internal routing system is ever going to cope with the sheer number > of customer networks"), so overall efficiency "should" be similar. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 > ************************************ Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Registration open. Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From EricS at t-com.net Tue May 10 11:37:19 2005 From: EricS at t-com.net (Erics) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:37:19 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site? Message-ID: Hi all, please, let?s get back to the main question - what is a site ? I think we need a definition for this, because we find a lot of different means (eg. endsite, single network, customer, subscriber) in the IPv6 allocation and assignment policy and the RFC3177. Lets view a concrete example : A customer of us, a shipping company has ten brances at ten different locations. And he is running a seperated network behind our acces router on each loctaion. >From our point of view and understanding the RFC3177 each location is a site and we assign a /XX to each branch. Do you agree on this, or are there different opinions ? Kind regards Eric Schmidt LIR de.telekom From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Tue May 10 11:26:24 2005 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:26:24 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509102340.GA24315@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509102340.GA24315@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050510092624.GA29882@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:23:40PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > I ponder wether it would make sense to write up an example addressing > plan for a /32 standard allocation which people can use as a template... Would be a nice RIPE doc, or an informational RFC. -- Tim/::1 From Patrick.Arkley at se.mci.com Tue May 10 13:42:36 2005 From: Patrick.Arkley at se.mci.com (Patrick Arkley) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:42:36 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site ? Message-ID: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BCB@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> That was indeed the original question. In my scenario, the same as yours, I would assign a /48 to each branch office. Too many subnets I would say. However, if the customer from a central point asked for a range for all his branch offices I wouldn't hesitate in assigning one /48 for him/her to use wherever appropriate. The problem from an adminitrative side is that we rarely get the customer to fill out a network request for all sites but rather request ranges per site as they are up for installation. Rgds Patrick Arkley Supervisor IP/DNS SKSC/SKRC Phone direct: +46 (0)8 5661 7075 Fax: +46 (0)8 5661 7236 Mobile: +46 (0)733 11 20 75 VNET: 915-7075 E-mail: patrick.arkley at se.mci.com Initial Call team [VPN]: +46 (0)8 5661 7899 or emea-ip-vpn-inital-call at se.mci.com Registry: +46 (0)8 5661 7454 or registry at se.uu.net IP-team: +46 (0)8 5661 7629 or ip at se.uu.net -----Original Message----- From: Erics [mailto:EricS at t-com.net] Sent: den 10 maj 2005 11:37 To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [ipv6-wg at localhost] Re: What is a site? Hi all, please, let?s get back to the main question - what is a site ? I think we need a definition for this, because we find a lot of different means (eg. endsite, single network, customer, subscriber) in the IPv6 allocation and assignment policy and the RFC3177. Lets view a concrete example : A customer of us, a shipping company has ten brances at ten different locations. And he is running a seperated network behind our acces router on each loctaion. >From our point of view and understanding the RFC3177 each location is a site and we assign a /XX to each branch. Do you agree on this, or are there different opinions ? Kind regards Eric Schmidt LIR de.telekom From gert at space.net Tue May 10 13:48:55 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:48:55 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050510114855.GX84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:37:19AM +0200, Erics wrote: > Lets view a concrete example : > A customer of us, a shipping company has ten brances at ten different > locations. And he is running a seperated network behind our acces router on each loctaion. > > >From our point of view and understanding the RFC3177 each location is a site > and we assign a /XX to each branch. > > Do you agree on this, or are there different opinions ? Customers with many offices are certainly "grey area". We tend to view it that way: - if the offices are all interconnected internally, and there's one link from "the customer network" to us, it's *one* site (/48) - if each office has their own link into our network, and especially to different POPs (-> ISP aggregation comes into play), each office is considered a site on its own, and gets its own /48. With a /48, one might argue that this is wastive - maybe it is. If we go for /56s, this will ease up the argument "what is a site", as we can have so much more sites... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From pekkas at netcore.fi Tue May 10 13:49:34 2005 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:49:34 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050509121008.GB25430@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net> <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> <1529CA06-FE03-4846-9B2A-17259D5E8E57@muada.com> <20050509101130.GJ20621@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20050509104037.GP84850@Space.Net> <20050509121008.GB25430@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 May 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote: > I do agree that /56s will be enough for almost all customers. But then > you will see scenarious that people outgrow the /56 and need a new /48 > and renumber AND restructure their network into this new space. THIS is > what "/48 for everone" is trying to prevent as much as possible. > Reserving a /48 space but only assigning /56 makes no sense either. A > /56 is 256 subnets only if ignoring ANY hierarchy. If you accept 2-3 > levels of hierachy into the customer network, your efficiency goes down, > and 8bits of subnetting starts to smell v4ish again. > > I could probably agree to /56 for residential access though. But > definately not for non-residential access like non-miniature companies, > universities etc. > > Do we really gain enough by going down to /56 that is worth the hassle? > > IMHO, changing the HD-Ratio is a better idea, with no downside I can > currently see (can anyone?). I agree with Daniel here (wow..:), though I'd prefer to keep our finger out of /48 boundary even for residential use. I guess most people failed to register the statements in the presentation like: "This is a highly speculative exercise." "__If__ this is looking slightly uncomfortable..." etc. If the goal was to allow the more (broadband) ISPs to use the default allocation sizes, using something like /56 might be worth considering. But this doesn't seem to be the goal. It seems to me that beyond a certain point, 1) HD ratio needs to tightened (that is, if you have 10M customers, you shouldn't really need 1000M /48's.), and/or 2) The more is requested, the more the ISPs have to show evidence of their current usage base, i.e., a startup ISP in China couldn't claim 100M customer base in 2 years. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From gert at space.net Tue May 10 13:53:12 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 07:30:48PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks. > I think this improves the efficiency. "better aggregation" is actually harmful to efficiency. How do you get 80% usage out of something that is only 55% filled, but that you need to get aggregated into a single block? > Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way > LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier > way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home > networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs). Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets? What are people doing there? > Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today > HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the > contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big > scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, again, to > the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-( Please be somewhat more specific why a /56 would be a "severe restriction" to an end user. Vague handwaving doesn't help us find consensus here. > On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that > might last for "only" 60-100 years? I don't really think so, as it will be > probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional > reasons (may be will not be IP at all). People never assumed IPv4 would last for 30 years... so the chance that IPv6 will stick around for a VERY long time is quite large (if it happens at all). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 10 13:56:16 2005 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:56:16 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, On Mon, 9 May 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi Gert, > > Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks. > I think this improves the efficiency. > > Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way > LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier > way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home > networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs). > > Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today > HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the > contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big > scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, the RFC3177 restriction (today) says my LIR "shouldn't" assign a /60 or a /56 to a small-but-not-a-single-subnet customer... from my view, there is a strong restriction here... > again, to > the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-( nooooooo, please :-) > On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that > might last for "only" 60-100 years? yes. if we envision its replacement there would be no point in trying to deploy it realistically... > I don't really think so, as it will be > probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional > reasons (may be will not be IP at all). would like to know which reasons... Regards, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!" From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 10 14:07:11 2005 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:07:11 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 May 2005, Gert Doering wrote: >> Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way >> LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier >> way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home >> networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs). > > Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets? What > are people doing there? It is very obvious to me... every household has a network engineer that likes (and needs) to play with routing... ;-))) >> Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today >> HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the >> contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big >> scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, again, to >> the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-( > > Please be somewhat more specific why a /56 would be a "severe restriction" > to an end user. Vague handwaving doesn't help us find consensus here. I've already expressed that the current /48 is a restriction -- i would be more in favour of allowing LIRs to assing /56s, BUT allowing end-users to grow upto /48s without any questions asked. :-) >> On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that >> might last for "only" 60-100 years? I don't really think so, as it will be >> probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional >> reasons (may be will not be IP at all). > > People never assumed IPv4 would last for 30 years... so the chance that > IPv6 will stick around for a VERY long time is quite large (if it happens > at all). IPv6 is already deployed in a very small subset of the public IPv4 Internet's nodes. Really, i'm a bit more concerned now about seeing that subset grow... But if IPv6's time span starts to be limited, i would rather work on IPv-whatever-next deployment :-) (my 2 cents and a swedish-half-crown...) Regards, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!" From gert at space.net Tue May 10 14:14:33 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:14:33 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:11PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > >Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets? What > >are people doing there? > > It is very obvious to me... every household has a network engineer that > likes (and needs) to play with routing... > ;-))) Are you the *typical* end customer...? Neither you nor me are (and I do well with about 4-5 network segments at home right now). But as I can see so far, nobody is aiming for a "no more /48s!!" policy, we're just discussiong potentially smaller assignments for the SOHO market. [..] > I've already expressed that the current /48 is a restriction -- i would be > more in favour of allowing LIRs to assing /56s, BUT allowing end-users to > grow upto /48s without any questions asked. :-) I agree with that. Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be fairly easy. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 10 14:21:52 2005 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:21:52 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 May 2005, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:11PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: >>> Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets? What >>> are people doing there? >> >> It is very obvious to me... every household has a network engineer that >> likes (and needs) to play with routing... >> ;-))) > > Are you the *typical* end customer...? Neither you nor me are (and I > do well with about 4-5 network segments at home right now). > > But as I can see so far, nobody is aiming for a "no more /48s!!" policy, > we're just discussiong potentially smaller assignments for the SOHO market. Yes, i know, i was just being ironnical. :-) And that was precisely my point... Almost-unmanaged network are hard to foresee using more than a handfull of subnets... > [..] >> I've already expressed that the current /48 is a restriction -- i would be >> more in favour of allowing LIRs to assing /56s, BUT allowing end-users to >> grow upto /48s without any questions asked. :-) > > I agree with that. Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be > fairly easy. Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and just stick with the /48 assignments only? I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that someone has to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-) Regards, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!" From gert at space.net Tue May 10 15:33:47 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:33:47 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050510133347.GA84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:21:52PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > >I agree with that. Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be > >fairly easy. > > Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and > just stick with the /48 assignments only? That's what this discussion is about: do we want to change RFC3177 (and thus, the RIPE IPv6 assignment guidelines) to recommend something else? > I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 > should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that someone has > to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-) Yep. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From dr at cluenet.de Tue May 10 16:24:47 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:24:47 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050510142447.GA4777@srv01.cluenet.de> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:21:52PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 > should be painless... It isn't. Making smaller default assingments like /56 makes only sense if you do NOT keep a whole /48 to grow the /56 to. So essetially you'll face networks with exceed 256 subnets which then need to renumber ALL of them. There isn't supposed to be _additional_ space, only larger replacement. And a network addressing plan designed to /56 and now approaching limits _does_ look different to a /48 plan, so people _will_ have to redesign their addressing plan while renumbering the whole network from the old /56 to the new /48. This is all the hassle (even more!) of IPv4... The whole point of /48 is to _avoid_ that as much as possible. But indeed, I don't see SOHO/home networks outgrow a /56 in the foreseeable future. If technologies come up which do mandate/foster high amounts of subnetting even in the SOHO/home space, the default SOHO/home assignment size can be raised again - which will introduce some pain, but not that much. Giving /56s to corporate networks is IMHO just plain wrong and "IPv6 not understood". And don't forget, upgrading your assignment from /56 to /48 WILL have a price tag attached to it. ISPs _still_ try to squeeze out revenue from artificial address space scarcity. As Tony pointed out, the business agenda of "product differentiation" is a/the big driver of this move. Providing better service than the competition is just too oldschool it seems. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Tue May 10 16:28:21 2005 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:28:21 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050510142447.GA4777@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> <20050510142447.GA4777@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050510142821.GC29882@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:24:47PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > And don't forget, upgrading your assignment from /56 to /48 WILL have a > price tag attached to it. ISPs _still_ try to squeeze out revenue from > artificial address space scarcity. As Tony pointed out, the business > agenda of "product differentiation" is a/the big driver of this move. Indeed. > Providing better service than the competition is just too oldschool > it seems. :-) ;) -- Tim/::1 From Mohsen.Souissi at nic.fr Wed May 11 12:10:47 2005 From: Mohsen.Souissi at nic.fr (Mohsen Souissi) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:10:47 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050510133347.GA84850@Space.Net> References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> <20050510133347.GA84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050511101047.GG1002@kerkenna.nic.fr> Hi, On 10 May, Gert Doering wrote: | Hi, | | On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:21:52PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: | > >I agree with that. Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be | > >fairly easy. | > | > Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and | > just stick with the /48 assignments only? | | That's what this discussion is about: do we want to change RFC3177 (and | thus, the RIPE IPv6 assignment guidelines) to recommend something else? ==> Here is my humble contribution to this debate. I guess that the goal should not be to replace RFC3177 by something completely different but rather by something with fewer constraints. We can indeed play on 3 rules : - adjust the HD ratio to 0.94 (I don't have the impression there's any objection to that among folks who have already expressed their opinion) - adjust the default prefix size for environment containing more that one router. The /48 default size should be reviewd but it should keep being applied to corporate networks because the number of links may potentially grow beyond 256. Conversely, there's nothing _REAL_ today that indicates that the default common soho/home network would consume more than 100 links. So respective to DHCPv6 Prefix delegation success rate, a /56 should be more than enough for the _DEFAULT CASE_. In case, a soho/home network administrator knows that they may hit that limit, the policy should allow them to get a /48 withought any bureaucratic procedures/delays. As for the problem of renumbering from a /56 to /48 for an unmanaged home network (for instance), I don't think it is really a too complex process. I hope that by the time such a problem may occurr, technical solutions for smooth renumbering will be already in place. Although, I can hear Jordi's arguments about the numerous potential uses of IPv6 in a home network, I don't believe it would apply for a significant portion of the average IPv6 users within the coming 10 years (don't ask me why 10 years and not 5 or 20 years ;-)). Thus going with a default /56 for the _DEFAULT_ case should save quite a large address space while IPv6 deployment tries to find a cruse speed... Apart from that, a /60 for a network containig only one router seems to be quite comfortable. I'm temptd to say that in that case, a reservation up to a /56 MAY be done by the ISP in order to expect the customer's network growth and ease renumebering and routing. We have been working with RFC3177 guidelines for a few years so we can afford give a try to slightly different alternative. Regards, Mohsen. | | > I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 | > should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that someone has | > to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-) | | Yep. | | Gert Doering | -- NetMaster | -- | Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) | | SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 | D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From rogerj at jorgensen.no Mon May 9 09:14:08 2005 From: rogerj at jorgensen.no (Roger Jorgensen) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 6 May 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi, > > Just one clarification. I was only trying to make an example, probably not > the best one. The idea is that a subnet is not used for a single device, of > course, but for a single set of them which are related, for example in terms > of who is accessing that network. So the clarified example will be: If the > same service provider (probably the manufacturer but it may be also a third > party company, even the ISP itself) is responsible for keeping the > maintenance of the freezer and the washing machine and the dish washing > machine, they could be allocated in a single subnet, but a different one > that the supermarket that will refill my beverage in the freezer, and a > different one that will refill the fish. > > Regarding your view of allowing a /60, I think if we want to go into that > direction is better to seek for a /56 or even better, a /52. But I'm still > convinced that we should stay with /48. Today SOHOs doesn't subnet because > the need has not come thanks, unfortunately to NAT, which avoided the > creation of innovation around Internet (those new services and applications > that will come with IPv6 and end-to-end restoration). I've been on almost all levels when it comes to use of IPv6 in practice, end-user, tunnelbroker, LAN/site provider, ISP, transit provider and I've done two mistakes since I started to use IPv6 in 99 or was it 2000... 1.) I used /127, even some /128, that was really stupid and have caused me lots of pain, /64 are the easiest way. Or even /126 for some point-to-point links. 2.) I used /64 for end-users, not even for a singel LAN did this work out, I always had to give out extra /64 for someone/something running there. So I changed to using /60 and it worked out flawless for all the typical situation, mostly end-users or LAN. not sure there is any need for defining what a site is. What I see as a more important issue are an "agreement" about other sizes than /64 and /48. I most cases are /64 too small (see above) and a /48 total waste of space. A /60 make sense now and in the next few years but I do see a need for something bigger, /56 seems to be a good choice. If you get any bigger a /48 are probably better to use anyway. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no ------------------------------------------------------- From rogerj at jorgensen.no Mon May 9 09:17:23 2005 From: rogerj at jorgensen.no (Roger Jorgensen) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:17:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> References: <960F7470312B2C46B6EBCC76F77E9616013B5BA0@stoexch1.stk.se.uu.net > <68B2A2E3-AC46-4D03-A0DE-9CEF0FF3E336@muada.com> <65E17533-D4AE-4171-B2C3-8E69B5FC1545@muada.com> <20050507075057.GA17617@bfib.ipng.nl> Message-ID: and the other view: On Sat, 7 May 2005, Pim van Pelt wrote: > Hi, > > | In programming, there are only three values: zero, one and many. > Good point. > > | What we need to do is come up with a good prefix size for networks that: > | > | - have no router > /64 /60 -> /52 > | - have one router > /48 see above > | - have multiple routers > /48 -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no ------------------------------------------------------- From rogerj at jorgensen.no Tue May 10 16:59:49 2005 From: rogerj at jorgensen.no (Roger Jorgensen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:59:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: <20050510142447.GA4777@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> <20050510142447.GA4777@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: As I see it, this is probably the cleanest sumary of the entire discussion so far. And the one that make most sense to. On Tue, 10 May 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:21:52PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > > I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 > > should be painless... > > It isn't. Making smaller default assingments like /56 makes only sense > if you do NOT keep a whole /48 to grow the /56 to. So essetially you'll > face networks with exceed 256 subnets which then need to renumber ALL > of them. There isn't supposed to be _additional_ space, only larger > replacement. > > And a network addressing plan designed to /56 and now approaching > limits _does_ look different to a /48 plan, so people _will_ have > to redesign their addressing plan while renumbering the whole network > from the old /56 to the new /48. This is all the hassle (even more!) > of IPv4... The whole point of /48 is to _avoid_ that as much as > possible. > > But indeed, I don't see SOHO/home networks outgrow a /56 in the > foreseeable future. If technologies come up which do mandate/foster > high amounts of subnetting even in the SOHO/home space, the default > SOHO/home assignment size can be raised again - which will introduce > some pain, but not that much. > > Giving /56s to corporate networks is IMHO just plain wrong and "IPv6 > not understood". > > And don't forget, upgrading your assignment from /56 to /48 WILL have a > price tag attached to it. ISPs _still_ try to squeeze out revenue from > artificial address space scarcity. As Tony pointed out, the business > agenda of "product differentiation" is a/the big driver of this move. > > Providing better service than the competition is just too oldschool > it seems. :-) > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no ------------------------------------------------------- From iljitsch at muada.com Wed May 11 12:55:19 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:55:19 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: What is a site? In-Reply-To: References: <20050509125535.GB84850@Space.Net> <20050510115312.GY84850@Space.Net> <20050510121433.GZ84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 10-mei-2005, at 14:21, Carlos Friacas wrote: > And that was precisely my point... Almost-unmanaged network are > hard to foresee using more than a handfull of subnets... Right. So there is currently no need to have more than a /60 for those networks. >> I agree with that. Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" >> should be >> fairly easy. Not just "fairly" but "very", even. > Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and > just stick with the /48 assignments only? Obviously if "we" (and I'm not just talking about the RIPE community here) decide that something different is in order, there will be a replacement for RFC 3177. > I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to > a /48 should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that > someone has to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-) The trouble is that when you start running out of a /56 so you need to move to a /48, you already have a significant amount of configuration going. It would be nice if we could renumber routers automatically, but as far as I know, that's not really possible now, and not likely to be possible in the forseeable future. So moving from a /56 to a /48 would be a lot of work. This means that giving out /56s is a poor choice, as it's not enough for some networks, but too much (if having too much address space is possible) for many. It's much easier to have to make the decision "tiny" or "not tiny" rather than "tiny to medium sized" or "bigger than medium sized / bigger than medium sized in the future". From lists at complx.LF.net Sun May 22 07:53:08 2005 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 07:53:08 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? Message-ID: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> Hello, As none of our uplinks currently provides v6 support, I'm looking for some site that would be willing to route our /32 and tunnel it to some endpoint via v4. We're located in southern germany (Stuttgart). -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 15 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From jeroen at unfix.org Sun May 22 12:01:58 2005 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 12:01:58 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <1116756119.23176.55.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 07:53 +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hello, > > As none of our uplinks currently provides v6 support, I'm looking > for some site that would be willing to route our /32 and tunnel > it to some endpoint via v4. > > We're located in southern germany (Stuttgart). I'd suggest you put this question to the ipv6-ops list: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops I'd also like to suggest that you peer up with: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ And don't forget to read, understand and comply with: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt That said, there are a large number of German IPv6 GRT participants and it should not be a problem at all even getting *native* connectivity. The only issue for you is to be at an IX, but as you received a TLA that should not be an issue, if you are a not at an IX yet I would really start to question the IPv6 address request procedures... Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gert at space.net Sun May 22 13:16:02 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:16:02 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <1116756119.23176.55.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> <1116756119.23176.55.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20050522111602.GW84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:01:58PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > if you are a not at an IX yet I would really > start to question the IPv6 address request procedures... I can't follow you here. The IPv6 allocation policies are not tied to technical infrastructure requirements, and that's a good thing - we *want* smaller ISPs to be able to get an IPv6 allocation, even if they can't reasonably warrant to connect to a major IX. Especially as upstream prices tend to be cheaper these days than just the access link to an IX, unless you happen to sit in the same city... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From dr at cluenet.de Sun May 22 13:31:31 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:31:31 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <20050522113131.GA19197@srv01.cluenet.de> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:53:08AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > As none of our uplinks currently provides v6 support, I'm looking > for some site that would be willing to route our /32 and tunnel > it to some endpoint via v4. If your aut-num is somewhat current, you're taking upstream from AS8472, AS13237, and AS20646 I know that two of them (AS8472, AS20646) do IPv6 for sure. Let me know if you need contacts. Celox (AS20646) might even be able to provide native. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From lists at complx.LF.net Sun May 22 13:53:55 2005 From: lists at complx.LF.net (Kurt Jaeger) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:53:55 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <20050522113131.GA19197@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> <20050522113131.GA19197@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050522115355.GH13509@complx.LF.net> Hi! > I know that two of them (AS8472, AS20646) do IPv6 for sure. Let me > know if you need contacts. Celox (AS20646) might even be able to provide > native. AS20646 does, but we're receiving them over a redback SMS1800 device on our side which does not support IPv6. AS8472 did not provide when I asked them the last time (last summer). I'll ask again. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 15 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi at LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372 From dr at cluenet.de Sun May 22 13:59:52 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:59:52 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Re: Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <20050522115355.GH13509@complx.LF.net> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> <20050522113131.GA19197@srv01.cluenet.de> <20050522115355.GH13509@complx.LF.net> Message-ID: <20050522115952.GB19197@srv01.cluenet.de> Hi, On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:53:55PM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > I know that two of them (AS8472, AS20646) do IPv6 for sure. Let me > > know if you need contacts. Celox (AS20646) might even be able to provide > > native. > > AS20646 does, but we're receiving them over a redback SMS1800 device > on our side which does not support IPv6. OK, but you can still tunnel to them. Better than tunneling to someone else who's not your v4 upstream provider. > AS8472 did not provide when I asked them the last time (last summer). > I'll ask again. Well, it's not official and AFAIK pretty much a one-man show. If you ask your normal v4 channels they might not even know who it is. Still, they have at least one downlink customer (12853). :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From jeroen at unfix.org Sun May 22 15:05:39 2005 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 15:05:39 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <20050522111602.GW84850@Space.Net> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> <1116756119.23176.55.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <20050522111602.GW84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1116767139.25402.14.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 13:16 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:01:58PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > if you are a not at an IX yet I would really > > start to question the IPv6 address request procedures... > > I can't follow you here. The IPv6 allocation policies are not tied to > technical infrastructure requirements, and that's a good thing - we *want* > smaller ISPs to be able to get an IPv6 allocation, even if they can't > reasonably warrant to connect to a major IX. Especially as upstream > prices tend to be cheaper these days than just the access link to an IX, > unless you happen to sit in the same city... Usually, afaik, ISP's are already at an IX and also have their upstreams there and are mostly operating from a colo close to that IX, thus being at an IX also directly makes one have multiple upstreams and thus at least one of them having IPv6 connectivity available. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gert at space.net Sun May 22 15:36:07 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 15:36:07 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <1116767139.25402.14.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> <1116756119.23176.55.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <20050522111602.GW84850@Space.Net> <1116767139.25402.14.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20050522133607.GX84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:05:39PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Usually, afaik, ISP's are already at an IX and also have their upstreams > there and are mostly operating from a colo close to that IX, thus being > at an IX also directly makes one have multiple upstreams and thus at > least one of them having IPv6 connectivity available. Interesting thought. This may be true for some smaller countries, but believe me, it's MORE expensive to get a line from "somewhere in Germany" to one of the major IXes than to get upstream from a number of big ISPs at wherever you are. (The ratio changes if you reach a given size, but for small bandwidths, say "below 20 Mbit/s.", going to an IX is just not financially attractive) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From berni at birkenwald.de Sun May 22 15:52:15 2005 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 15:52:15 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ? In-Reply-To: <20050522133607.GX84850@Space.Net> References: <20050522055308.GD13509@complx.LF.net> <1116756119.23176.55.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <20050522111602.GW84850@Space.Net> <1116767139.25402.14.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <20050522133607.GX84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <42908E8F.3050806@birkenwald.de> Gert Doering schrieb: > This may be true for some smaller countries, but believe me, it's MORE > expensive to get a line from "somewhere in Germany" to one of the major > IXes than to get upstream from a number of big ISPs at wherever you are. Except you do the (rather moronic) move seen at some places, get a non-redundant fibre across the whole country and collect peering and upstream at a major IX. If the fibre breaks you're doomed, but hey, it's cheap. A company I work for is currently announcing three RIPE-TLAs (one own, two on behalf of our customers), adding a fourth in short time. Not connected to any IX, although a rather major IX would be in 20km radius. And another company will start next week (hopefully), also not connected to an IX due to political issues. Bernhard From leo at ripe.net Tue May 24 10:01:18 2005 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:01:18 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Fwd: [apops] APNIC New IPv6 address block(s) References: Message-ID: <201D513B-AC0E-44B5-9118-9C65F8587321@ripe.net> Begin forwarded message: > From: John Tran > Date: May 24, 2005 9:29:05 am GMT+02:00 > To: apnic-announce at lists.apnic.net > Cc: apops at apops.net > Subject: [apops] APNIC New IPv6 address block(s) > Message-Id: > > > > Dear colleagues > > APNIC received the following IPv6 address block from IANA recently > and will be making allocations from this range in the near future. > > 2400:0000::/19 > > This announcement is being made for the information of the Internet > community, and so that network configurations such as routing filters > may be updated as appropriate. > > For more information on the resources administered by APNIC, see: > > http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html > > For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges > administered by APNIC, see: > > http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html > > > Kind regards > > Son > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Resources Services Manager > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 > http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 > Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188 > email: > helpdesk at apnic.net > Please send Internet Resource Requests to > _____________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > apops mailing list > apops at apops.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops > Website: www.apops.net > -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From dr at cluenet.de Tue May 24 14:53:20 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:53:20 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE 50 Report In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20050524134842.0402ae48@mailhost.ripe.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20050524134842.0402ae48@mailhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Nick Hyrka wrote: > IPV6 WORKING GROUP > > - It was decided that the RIPE Whois Database will continue to include more > services that run in native IPv6. Hm? > - It was noted that the IPv6 Working Group needs to decide where it wishes > to house the new, operational IPv6 mailing list. What are you talking about here? What "new, operational IPv6 mailing list" are you referring to? What has the RIPE IPv6 Working Group to do with it? I have some suspicion that this is a reference to Ulrich Kiermayr's comment? Please clarify. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From shane at ripe.net Tue May 24 17:54:14 2005 From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:54:14 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE 50 Report In-Reply-To: <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20050524134842.0402ae48@mailhost.ripe.net> <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <42934E26.7060500@ripe.net> Daniel Roesen wrote: >On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Nick Hyrka wrote: > > >>IPV6 WORKING GROUP >> >>- It was decided that the RIPE Whois Database will continue to include more >>services that run in native IPv6. >> >> > >Hm? > > Right now the Whois server answers queries through a proxy. The server will answer IPv6 itself, and the proxy terminated. Also, there is no IPv6 mirroring facility. This will be added. -- Shane From dr at cluenet.de Tue May 24 21:22:53 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE 50 Report In-Reply-To: <42934E26.7060500@ripe.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20050524134842.0402ae48@mailhost.ripe.net> <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> <42934E26.7060500@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20050524192253.GA17607@srv01.cluenet.de> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:54:14PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > >>IPV6 WORKING GROUP > >> > >>- It was decided that the RIPE Whois Database will continue to include more > >>services that run in native IPv6. > > > >Hm? > > > Right now the Whois server answers queries through a proxy. The server > will answer IPv6 itself, and the proxy terminated. > > Also, there is no IPv6 mirroring facility. This will be added. Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. This makes (much) sense. :-) Best regards, daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From gert at space.net Tue May 24 23:09:04 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:09:04 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE 50 Report In-Reply-To: <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20050524134842.0402ae48@mailhost.ripe.net> <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050524210904.GQ84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:53:20PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > - It was noted that the IPv6 Working Group needs to decide where it wishes > > to house the new, operational IPv6 mailing list. > > What are you talking about here? What "new, operational IPv6 mailing > list" are you referring to? What has the RIPE IPv6 Working Group to do > with it? > > I have some suspicion that this is a reference to Ulrich Kiermayr's > comment? There was some concern that "maybe some day" cluenet.de wouldn't be able to host the ipv6-ops mailing list any more - you being a single person, and no "organization" backing it. I think this is what is being referred to. No specific actions have been decided (as far as I can remember, but that was Friday, after a long week... :-) ), it was more a generic "worry", and I think the NCC offered to host the list if needed. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From david.kessens at nokia.com Wed May 25 00:31:40 2005 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 15:31:40 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [db-wg] Re: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE 50 Report In-Reply-To: <20050524192253.GA17607@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20050524134842.0402ae48@mailhost.ripe.net> <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> <42934E26.7060500@ripe.net> <20050524192253.GA17607@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050524223140.GA7177@nokia.com> Daniel, On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:22:53PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:54:14PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > >>IPV6 WORKING GROUP > > >> > > >>- It was decided that the RIPE Whois Database will continue to include more > > >>services that run in native IPv6. > > > > > >Hm? > > > > > Right now the Whois server answers queries through a proxy. The server > > will answer IPv6 itself, and the proxy terminated. > > > > Also, there is no IPv6 mirroring facility. This will be added. > > Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. This makes (much) sense. :-) Despite this explanation, I still don't understand how this can make any sense. We as the working group have no authority to tell the RIPE NCC what to do or not to do. At best we can recommend to the RIPE NCC to take a certain approach and this approach will in general be followed if there is no/little funding required, or otherwise, *if* the RIPE NCC membership agrees on funding such work. In addition, we did not in any way make such a recommendation. We discussed the issue and some people expressed their opinion that we want more than just a proxy service but we did not formally adopted a recommendation (since nobody asked to formally adopt such a recommendation). I am personally glad to hear that the RIPE NCC decided to make the mirroring service available in ipv6 though! Also, I appreciate that we don't have to formally adopt such recommendations as I think it makes for a much better working relationship where the RIPE NCC takes the initiative and picks up on ideas and discussions that happen in the working group without having to formally request the RIPE NCC to do so (policy issues are obviously a completely different matter!). On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:22:53PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > > - It was noted that the IPv6 Working Group needs to decide where it > > - wishes > > to house the new, operational IPv6 mailing list. > > What are you talking about here? What "new, operational IPv6 mailing > list" are you referring to? What has the RIPE IPv6 Working Group to do > with it? Again, the working group didn't decide this. It was brought up that a new mailing list was formed and we received several comments on this topic. Among others that it might not be ideal to have such a list being run by an enthiustic individual as it is important to keep mailarchives preserved even if the individual moves on to pursue other interests. However, this was a comment from the audience, not a decision by the working group. In relation to this topic, I just noticed that the working group website page now mentions: > There is also a global mailing list (not regional RIR/NOG) dedicated > to operational matters of the global IPv6 (production, not 6BONE) > Internet at: > > http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ > > If you are taking part in IPv6 BGP or are interested in global IPv6 > operational matters, please join the list. The purpose is to foster > exchange of experience and resolve problems which require non-local > coordination. The list is also available to discuss problems people > face while deploying IPv6. I did not request the RIPE NCC to put this information on the website neither did the working endorse this mailing list in any form or way. David Kessens ipv6 wg chair --- From dr at cluenet.de Wed May 25 03:48:46 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 03:48:46 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [db-wg] Re: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE 50 Report In-Reply-To: <20050524223140.GA7177@nokia.com> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20050524134842.0402ae48@mailhost.ripe.net> <20050524125320.GA12910@srv01.cluenet.de> <42934E26.7060500@ripe.net> <20050524192253.GA17607@srv01.cluenet.de> <20050524223140.GA7177@nokia.com> Message-ID: <20050525014846.GB19147@srv01.cluenet.de> Hi David, On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:31:40PM -0700, David Kessens wrote: > > What are you talking about here? What "new, operational IPv6 mailing > > list" are you referring to? What has the RIPE IPv6 Working Group to do > > with it? > > Again, the working group didn't decide this. It was brought up that a > new mailing list was formed and we received several comments on this > topic. Among others that it might not be ideal to have such a list > being run by an enthiustic individual as it is important to keep > mailarchives preserved even if the individual moves on to pursue other > interests. However, this was a comment from the audience, not a > decision by the working group. Yep, this is exactly my understanding what happenend, too (I watched the "web"cast but had no chance to react as the stream had too much delay). I'm still surprised about such a concern, given that ipv6-ops is not at all "mission critical", and other much more "mission critical" lists like nsp-sec are (at least while I was subscribed) also run by "enthusiastic individuals". If anyone wants to mirror the archives I have no problem with that at all. Actually, someone already set up archival at GMANE on 2005-04-18: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.ipv6 so the public off-site archive is already there. > In relation to this topic, I just noticed that the working group > website page now mentions: > > > There is also a global mailing list (not regional RIR/NOG) dedicated > > to operational matters of the global IPv6 (production, not 6BONE) > > Internet at: > > > > http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ > > > > If you are taking part in IPv6 BGP or are interested in global IPv6 > > operational matters, please join the list. The purpose is to foster > > exchange of experience and resolve problems which require non-local > > coordination. The list is also available to discuss problems people > > face while deploying IPv6. > > I did not request the RIPE NCC to put this information on the website > neither did the working endorse this mailing list in any form or way. Me neither. RIPE NCC did notify me a few weeks ago that they did add a reference. It wasn't done on my request. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net Tue May 31 11:28:27 2005 From: bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net (Bjoern A. Zeeb) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:28:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] documenting RIPE critical infrastructure/micro allocations Message-ID: Hi, while updating some prefix filters I started a link collection documenting the entries. I have found that other RIRs (ARIN, APNIC) have neat documentation about the critical infrastructure/micro allocations assigned but I only found two references of the Block RIPE uses for v6 IXP assignments. | ARIN Critical infrastructure, micro allocations | http://www.arin.net/reference/micro_allocations.html | APNIC Critical infrastructure, micro allocations | http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For LACNIC I haven't found any assignments but following documentation: | LACNIC Critical infrastructure, micro allocations | http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/ipv6.html 5.5. IPv6 micro allocations | http://lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/micro-asignaciones_ipv6-sp.pdf For RIPE Gert's page is talking about 2001:7F8::/29 and the DB entry. | http://www.ripe.net/whois?searchtext=EU-ZZ-2001-07F8 | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policy-ixp.html Could someone add documentation/web page stating that RIPE is doing /48 assignments from this Block for critical infrastructure (read: IXPs)? Perhaps also giving a list of which prefixes got assigned already as these won't show up in delegated-ripencc-latest. Greetings Bjoern A. Zeeb -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT bz @ FreeBSD dot org