[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri May 6 11:20:16 CEST 2005
Hi, I¹ve 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 don¹t 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 can¹t 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" <ip at se.uu.net> Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" <ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net> Fecha: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:44:00 +0100 Para: "'ipv6-wg at ripe.net'" <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 Armégatan 38 S-171 04 Solna, Sweden Web: www.se.mci.com <http://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 <mailto: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.
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]