[address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up

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: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20080430/40070fbf/attachment.html>