[lir-wg] IPv6 assignments to RIPE itself

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:15:42PM +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 13:56:18 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> > Alexander Gall has summarized it pretty well - if we want to give out
> > /48s freely, then the quite conservative RIR->LIR allocation policy 
> > currently in place *hurts*.
> Very true if you mean that you cannot build a reasonable hierarchy.

Yup.  This is mostly the point behind my rantings.  Trying to build a
resonable hierarchy through some levels of regional aggregation inside
my network, and then aggregation through 1-2 levels of resellers.

The other point is that one of the main arguments in that RFC is "if a
customer changes ISPs, they will always get the same size prefix (a /48)",
which is just not working if customers can very liberally get more than
a /48 to account for "another-level-down end sites".  So we're back to
the address space haggling days, just argueing about the number of /48s
instead the number of single IPs.

So I still think that the concept of "one /48 for each site" without a 
proper definition of "site" is flawed.  And yes, it's arguably pretty
impossible to give a working definiton.

> > As for the argument "are universities ISPs"?  Yes, at least over here,
> > a fair number of them are providing IP connectivity to the student's 
> > hostels via leased line/ethernet, and to all other students via ISDN/Modem
> > dialup.  So for all address management purposes, they are ISPs.
> 
> This is true in the Netherlands too. Yes, I think those should be treated
> as ISPs, probably getting a prefix (>> /48) from their NRN.

See above :-)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  55593  (55180)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299