This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Thu Nov 17 17:23:25 CET 2005
Marc van Selm wrote: <SNIPS throughout the doc> > I am investigating how NATO should acquire IPv6 address space. NATO will use > multiple transmission providers, NATO owned transmission and national > networks. Also transmission contracts will have to be opened for bidding > every few years. That makes requesting IP space from an ISP a non starter. So > we explore the LIR route. Note that NATO has a service provider under its > umbrella that provides service towards the other NATO organisations. This is already good enough. Because the "ISP" is providing connectivity to the other NATO organisations. Done. > At this time it is reasonably hard to specify the 200 /48 that will be given > out for the "IPv6 Initial Allocation Request". The 200 is a *PLAN*. Also, if you have 200 employees and every one is going to connect to your network, then they need 200 /48's. As they are endsites connecting using a VPN tool and these endsites might just have more than 1 device in their network which need to access your site over the VPN. > Having reached about 130 or so > on my list (not finished yet) I can't help wondering why RIPE-NCC should care > about a list of sites that they only a vague clue of what they are and have > no means of verification if the list is correct. They don't care. Having said that, I get the > feeling that the 200 rule only ads admin overhead and has limited actual > power. Now NATO could include a summarised version in the Initial Allocation > and do something like: > > Subnet: /48 1 year 5 regional sites (/48 per site = 5x /48) > Subnet: /48 1 year 20 subordinate sites to the 5 regional sites (/48 per site > = 5x 20x /48 = 100 /48) > Subnet: /48 2 year 40 deployed elements (/48 per site = 40x /48) > Subnet: /48 2 year 70 Crisis Response Operation locations (/48 per location = > 70 x /48) > Total: 215x /48 That is PERFECT. > I can't help feeling this rule is written for ISPs but will be counter > productive for NATO and organisations with a very large privately operated > enterprice network. The 200 rule is there to make sure that there will be no entity that is going to request a /32, while they will never even use even a single /48 of hosts. So: Become LIR, pay the fees, fill in the forms and request that /32. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 238 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051117/a8311023/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]