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 ]
Marc van Selm
marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int
Fri Nov 18 09:34:28 CET 2005
On Thursday 17 November 2005 17:15, Marc van Selm wrote: > Following up on the discussion during RIPE-51, I have not heard much > discussion on "200 customer requirement for IPv6" rule. So I would like to > hear your views on this. Nice to see this discussion reviving. From what I hear I can draw the following conclusions for NATO (and large enterprices with a private WAN): 1) RIPE-NCC would be happy with a summarised version of our plan and does not care about the details of 200+ /48 assignments. As soon as Leo Vegoda is back from his leave, I'll know for sure if RIPE-NCC will accept it. But I get the feeling they will. 2) The 200-rule, although strongly defended during RIPE-51, remains controversial. I guess another qualifier must be introduced to satisfy both camps. 3) PI IPv6 space seems to be the solution to the large enterprice problem. If the RIR would allocate it directly to the end-customer, orgs like NATO do not have to become a LIR. They just have a block that they "own" and can contract out to an ISP of their choice to route (and rebid the contract every few years or so as the procurement rules require) or route (part of it) via private circuits. I'd say replace the 200-rule with something like the intention to use at least X /48 subnets distributed over Y or more geographical locations while using private WAN infrastructure or more than one ISP. I think that X and Y should be not so large. (To the side, we could accept a smaller block, like a /34, also for now but we all know that growth in the next 10 years is imminent so RIPE-NCC would reserve the whole /32 and probably more anyway.) Anyway, I think something like this would do the same as the 200-rule was intended for while is it not such a straight jacket. Although I think the action to write something about that was on somebody else... What do you all think about this approach? Especially the Nee sayers during RIPE-51 that have been a bit quiet until now. Marc -- Marc van Selm NATO C3 Agency CIS Division E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
- 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 ]