From vilem.sladek at nic.cz Wed Apr 2 09:47:32 2008 From: vilem.sladek at nic.cz (Vilem Sladek) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:47:32 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Conference, Internet and Technology 08, invitation Message-ID: <47F33A14.9080404@nic.cz> Dear Mr., dear Mrs., my name is Vilem Sladek and I work for CZ.NIC (www.nic.cz) in Prague. For May 2008 we prepare the conference Internet and Technology 08, where we would like to present Internet experiences from the World. We would like also introduce more about IPv6, so we would like to invite you to Prague, to present about IPv6 to the Czech community. The conference is planed on 20th of May, will start at 10 a.m. and finished at about 5 p.m. The conference will be divided it to four parts (Domains, Internet Resources, Technologies and Zeitgeist). Your presentation is planed to second block (Internet resources). We are really interested in this topic and would like to introduce it to the Internet community in the Czech Republic. Please, could you send me the information or call me, if you want to know more detail, if you would like to came, if we can do anything for you for welcome you at the conference Internet and Technology 08. Thank you for your interest and will looking forward the answer. Best regards form Prague Vilem Sladek -- Vil?m Sl?dek Communication Specialist CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2 Czech Republic T +420 222 745 117 F +420 222 745 112 M +420 739 452 919 www.nic.cz From david.kessens at nsn.com Wed Apr 23 12:58:39 2008 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:58:39 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56 Message-ID: <20080423105839.GG3471@nsn.com> During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet on: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30, in Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin I have prepared a draft agenda (see below) with the all the usual agenda items. At this point, I would like to invite all of you to propose other agenda items that are relevant for the deployment of ipv6 in the RIPE service region. Note that we care more about the technical content of your topic than the presentation method: very brief topics without presentation slides that just need a brief discussion are just as welcome as longer presentations with slides. I would also like to draw your attention to the following: The RIPE NCC is planning to turn off IPv4 connectivity on the wireless network for the duration of around an hour on the wednesday morning. This will allow us to try out how one could survive on an IPv6 only network and to draw attention to all the issues that still need to be worked out in order to make this work 100% seemless for the rest of the Internet users. In order to help you prepare, in addition to the normal dual stack wireless network, there will be an IPv6 only wireless network available during the whole meeting and the RIPE NCC will provide instruction sheets on how to configure various popular operating systems. Obviously, the participants of the IPv6 working group don't need all this as we are already fully prepared for the coming of IPv6. However, you are very welcome to participate by helping other people to get their setup to work with IPv6 or by submitting reports and bugfixes/workarounds on problems that are discovered when trying this out. The actual operational details about this event will be posted by the RIPE NCC. In addition to our working group session and the ipv6 only event, I would like to encourage you to take a look at the plenary agendas. There are a large number of presentations scheduled that touch directly or indirectly on IPv6. I hope this helps and see you all in Berlin, David Kessens --- Draft agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE56 When: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30 Where: Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Experience with ipv6 on the wireless network before, after and during the IPv4 turn-off (RIPE NCC, input from the audience) D. 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) E. Follow-up: Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) ... Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB --- From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Apr 23 13:45:04 2008 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:45:04 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56 In-Reply-To: <20080423105839.GG3471@nsn.com> Message-ID: Hi David, I will like to do a short presentation about a new project, 6DEPLOY, which will organize IPv6 trainings in Europe and the rest of the RIR regions, including the participation of some of the RIRs as partners and others as sponsors. Regards, Jordi > De: David Kessens > Responder a: > Fecha: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:58:39 -0700 > Para: > CC: > Asunto: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56 > > > During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet on: > > Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30, in Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin > > I have prepared a draft agenda (see below) with the all the usual > agenda items. > > At this point, I would like to invite all of you to propose other > agenda items that are relevant for the deployment of ipv6 in the RIPE > service region. Note that we care more about the technical content of > your topic than the presentation method: very brief topics without > presentation slides that just need a brief discussion are just as > welcome as longer presentations with slides. > > I would also like to draw your attention to the following: > > The RIPE NCC is planning to turn off IPv4 connectivity on the wireless > network for the duration of around an hour on the wednesday morning. > This will allow us to try out how one could survive on an IPv6 only > network and to draw attention to all the issues that still need to be > worked out in order to make this work 100% seemless for the rest of > the Internet users. In order to help you prepare, in addition to the > normal dual stack wireless network, there will be an IPv6 only > wireless network available during the whole meeting and the RIPE NCC > will provide instruction sheets on how to configure various popular > operating systems. > > Obviously, the participants of the IPv6 working group don't need all > this as we are already fully prepared for the coming of IPv6. > However, you are very welcome to participate by helping other people > to get their setup to work with IPv6 or by submitting reports and > bugfixes/workarounds on problems that are discovered when trying > this out. The actual operational details about this event will be > posted by the RIPE NCC. > > In addition to our working group session and the ipv6 only event, I > would like to encourage you to take a look at the plenary agendas. > There are a large number of presentations scheduled that touch > directly or indirectly on IPv6. > > I hope this helps and see you all in Berlin, > > David Kessens > --- > > Draft agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE56 > > When: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30 > Where: Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin > > A. Administrative stuff > - appointment of scribe > - agenda bashing > (David Kessens) > > B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services > (RIPE NCC) > > C. Experience with ipv6 on the wireless network before, after and > during the IPv4 turn-off > (RIPE NCC, input from the audience) > > D. 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) > > E. Follow-up: Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) > (Gert Doering) > > F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond > (input from the audience) > > ... > > Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan > (input from the audience) > > Z. AOB > --- > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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 david.kessens at nsn.com Wed Apr 23 14:05:08 2008 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:05:08 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56 In-Reply-To: References: <20080423105839.GG3471@nsn.com> Message-ID: <20080423120507.GH3471@nsn.com> Jordi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:04PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > I will like to do a short presentation about a new project, 6DEPLOY, which > will organize IPv6 trainings in Europe and the rest of the RIR regions, > including the participation of some of the RIRs as partners and others as > sponsors. Is this really a technical/operational presentation ? If not, a one slide announcement with pointers to websites under: F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) seems most appropriate. David Kessens --- From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Apr 24 09:04:38 2008 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56 In-Reply-To: <20080423120507.GH3471@nsn.com> Message-ID: Hi David, Yes, that will work. Regards, Jordi > De: David Kessens > Responder a: > Fecha: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:05:08 -0700 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > CC: > Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg > RIPE56 > > > Jordi, > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:04PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> >> I will like to do a short presentation about a new project, 6DEPLOY, which >> will organize IPv6 trainings in Europe and the rest of the RIR regions, >> including the participation of some of the RIRs as partners and others as >> sponsors. > > Is this really a technical/operational presentation ? > > If not, a one slide announcement with pointers to websites under: > > F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond > (input from the audience) > > seems most appropriate. > > David Kessens > --- > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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 turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 14:55:08 2008 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:55:08 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up Message-ID: Hi, Is there anyone experienced in creating RIPE policy documents AND ready to help me to create a new one? (Or: two new ones). In the previous RIPE meeting I gave a talk ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes-half-proposal.pdf) and attached a copy of a draft-RFC ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes.pdf ) I realized that some of my ideas relate to policies, other relate to technologies. As there is a separate policy working group now, I try to create a policy document as well ? and need some help to formalize and may be finalize, correct my ideas. Highlights: 1, AS-local IPv4 address pool creation and maintenance 2, IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies Details1 (AS-local IPv4): The drafts ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes.pdf) gives more details, please find a short summary below. One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: The scope of private addresses is not defined well; The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing domain borders. AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to private address pool: Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group of ASs) Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly atmosphere); Network Address Translation should be applied only if the destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See below) Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in the same way as we do it for the "experts"? I do not think so. In fact, we can not. Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them? Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough global addresses, some tricks should be applied. Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves addresses considerably. However: If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the costumer base is still the same. Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the problems. 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer being on-line at peak time might increase. AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer restrictions.) If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 allocation with it. However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 prefix) The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. Thanks, Geza Turchanyi INFO-C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed Apr 30 15:48:24 2008 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:48:24 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 > private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: > > The scope of private addresses is not defined well; > > The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; > > Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing > domain borders. Why? If one doesn't feel the need to use NAT, why should NAT be mandatory? > AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to > private address pool: > > Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group > of ASs) What's a collaborative group of AS'es? And what's a non-collaborative group os AS'es? > Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); > > Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to > this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly > atmosphere); Past experience tells me people who manage address blocks *rarely* feel any urge to give back unused space... > Network Address Translation should be applied only if the > destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. > > > > The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our > present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See > below) I don't agree it would help with v4 to v6 transition. Then AS border routers would have to route between 100.110.120.130-local and 100.110.120.130-internet. Seems kind of odd :-) This is kind of similar to administratively duplicate the v4 internet's space... > Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: > > > > As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies > for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise > network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact > persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, > and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. Unfortunately not everybody knows about it, nor that always happens... :-( > However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the > "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP > address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy > costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment > today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Allow me to disagree. The main difference with IPv6 is the ability to assign each DSL customer with a set of subnets instead of a unique *temporary* IPv4 address! And while in the v4 world, you don't insert the record for 1 customer/1 IP, you could theoretically do it in the v6 world... (1 customer/ 1 slash-48or56or60or64) > Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in > the same way as we do it for the "experts"? Not sure if i like the "dummies"/"experts" context. This clearly need rephrasing if a policy proposal goes ahead... :-) > I do not think so. In fact, we can not. > > > > Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. > > > > If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users > how would you provide IP addresses for them? Yes, for everyone of them, but not at the same time. Hence, the "temporary". :-) > Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough > global addresses, some tricks should be applied. And they are........ > Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation > also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves > addresses considerably. However: > > > > If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may > increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the > costumer base is still the same. > > > > Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the > problems. > > > > 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. > Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at > the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer > being on-line at peak time might increase. Question: Have you ever been on a network which had under-provision of IP addresses? I surely did have. And it was kind of annoying. :-) > AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer > has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private > address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This > restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable > addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using > AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer > restrictions.) > > > > If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate > reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a > dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 > allocation with it. > > > > However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic > IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 > stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly > reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. That depends on each LIR...... > Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for > "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily > recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, > that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 > prefix) In other words, a new ?IPv6 very large private addressing? space? > The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If > there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit > bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be > allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered > network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in > the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. IPv6 can in fact be the tool to drop the "dynamic" allocation of addresses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H addressing inside any ISP network..... so i don't really understand what's the objective here. > OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. > > > > Thanks, > > Geza Turchanyi > > INFO-C > Best Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (241744/992), naming (billions) and... people!" Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent from: 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830 Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received due to any error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 30 16:05:26 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:05:26 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them According to current RIPE policy, you assign each one of these DSL or cable modem customers with a /48. Mobile phones are different and should probably get a /64 since their internal networks will not have additional interfaces added. Of course, in the future we will have mobile phones which can act as Internet gateways for our car LAN and then they will get a /48. There are enough /48's availble in IPv6 to give every living human being over 4000 of them, so I don't see any problems with 30 million assignments. As far as education goes, the following ARIN wiki page has a good summary of how to set up an IPv6 allocation plan and it also links to an Internet draft that has a more detailed discussion of the topic: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans Everyone involved with IPv6 addressing on a practical level, should read this wiki page and the documents that it references. --Michael Dillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Apr 30 16:44:24 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:44:24 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Michael, You wrote: > > If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users > > how would you provide IP addresses for them > > According to current RIPE policy, you assign each one of these DSL or cable modem > customers with a /48. Mobile phones are different and should probably get a /64 > since their internal networks will not have additional interfaces added. Of course, > in the future we will have mobile phones which can act as Internet gateways for > our car LAN and then they will get a /48. That's not actually what the current policy document says. It's actual wording is: 5.4.1. Assignment address space size End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). The old policy (ripe-412) had the reference to RFC 3177 that you have paraphrased. But that recommendation has been removed and the only suggested limit is a minimum value of /64. Apart from that minimum, the network operator can do whatever makes most sense to their network and customer base. So, in answer to the original question, 30m /64s is fine if that's what is needed and 30m /56s is fine if that's what is needed and 30m /48s is fine if that's what is needed. There is a presumption of subsidiarity in the policy text, putting the choice into local hands. Regards, Leo Vegoda From iljitsch at muada.com Wed Apr 30 17:01:32 2008 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:01:32 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 apr 2008, at 16:05, wrote: > According to current RIPE policy, you assign each one of these DSL or > cable modem customers with a /48. Mobile phones are different and > should > probably get a /64 since their internal networks will not have > additional interfaces added. That is a misconception. If I want to go online with my laptop through my mobile phone's cellular link, I need a prefix between the laptop and the phone and then something between the phone and the ISP. So that could be two separate /64s or some other setup, but just an address for the phone doesn't cut it. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 30 17:05:23 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:05:23 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: , <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: > That's not actually what the current policy document says. > It's actual wording is: > > 5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their > LIR or ISP. > The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR > or ISP to make, > using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is > anticipated for the > End Site). Ok, it has changed and I did not notice it. By the way this is TERRIBLE English. Parentheses are no substitute for clear language. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR to make. The minimum value of the assignment is /64 which is to be used when only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site. Of course this leaves out some important context explaining that all ordinary End Sites such as businesses and homes, should be allocated enough for multiple subnets. The overall recommendation globally, from the designers of IPv6, is to allocate a /48 to all End Sites regardless of their size, unless you are CERTAIN that there will NEVER be more than one subnet at the site. So even though RIPE policy leaves it wide open, there is still such a thing as best practice, and there is guidance from other sources. One of those sources is ARIN policy in which they suggest that it is acceptable to assign a /56 to End Sites which are homes or individual apartments. They did this because cable ISPs were concerned that allocating a /48 to every home would be too wasteful. I believe that American cable companies have to allocate IP addresses for every home that is reachable by their cable system even though many customers will use DSL or dialup or wifi Internet access from another company. It would be nice to see an IPv6 addressing best practice document that covers all these areas, whether they are RIR policy, technical or administrative issues. > So, in answer to the original question, 30m /64s is fine if > that's what is needed and 30m /56s is fine if that's what is > needed and 30m /48s is fine if that's what is needed. > There is a presumption of subsidiarity in the policy text, > putting the choice into local hands. Seems to me that the question was not as vague as your answer implies. The writer referred to 30 million DSL, Cable modem or mobile users. If those really are 30m DSL or cable modem users, then /64 is NOT the right answer. /56 is what is needed for homes, and /48 is needed for businesses. There is no advantage to the ISP to ever allocate less than /56, except to very special sites where they are certain that there will never be more than one subnet. For example a fibre amplifier site might get a /64 or a city traffic light control station, or a kiosk on the street. This is an area where more guidance is needed complete with real-world examples to help people understand how it should work. --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Wed Apr 30 17:12:45 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:12:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <20080430151245.GY11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 04:05:23PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Ok, it has changed and I did not notice it. By the way this is TERRIBLE > English. Parentheses are no substitute for clear language. Unfortunately, too many of us are not english native speakers. So we *do* welcome textual improvements during the policy development process... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 30 17:28:55 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:28:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: <20080430151245.GY11038@Space.Net> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <20080430151245.GY11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > > Ok, it has changed and I did not notice it. By the way this is > > TERRIBLE English. Parentheses are no substitute for clear language. > > Unfortunately, too many of us are not english native speakers. So we > *do* welcome textual improvements during the policy > development process... People from Northern European countries often write better English than native speakers do. In any case, the word "English" has too many meanings and is ambiguous. I should have said that this was terrible "grammar" or terrible "wording". It would be the same if the text was written in French or German. --Michael Dillon Ich komme in Berlin an, Sontags Abend. ? bient?t! From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 21:08:24 2008 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:08:24 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up, second round Message-ID: Hi, Many thank for your comments in the first round. I appreciated that most of you read my text and commented only after reading as a whole. Those who listened me at RIPE 55 had been in better position. Let me clarify some details: I fully agree that the final document should not use the term "dummy" and "expert". However, these words emphasize the difference between different class of users. 1, Actually an IP address of a DSL user is not in the RIPE database, expect in the very exceptional case when the DSL user have a fix IPv4 address, may be even a subnet. 2, There are many ways to allocate IPv6 network for DSL users; however, it is hopeless to create database entries for them. The reasons are not only technical, but political. With IPv4 most of the DSL users had pseudo-anonym IPv4 addresses, their contact details had been known only by their ISP (and by the police, eventually), and the ISP is not allowed at all to publish the user data in any open database. 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do it? If an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than a RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in the database! 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using it then we will loose it soon. 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine for the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). 7, I still propose a common policy: how to distinguish between an "anonym" DSL user and a "registered" one. My proposal is: an "anonym" DSL user should receive a minimum IPv6 allocation. In this case the "minimum" is one subnet (/64) or, if there are automatically usable subnets for special purpose then the minimum size might include those subnets. If a DSL user need more then should fill an address request, and registered. 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) users, then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, AS-local address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of autonomous Systems might share even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a collaborative effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow creation of a common address pool! It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL users if we have a big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. Please read also my proposals: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes.pdf and my presentation: ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes-half-proposal.pdf Many thanks for your attention, Geza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: