[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu> wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>

Hello again, Elvis. :)


> I'm not talking about how much you would use on your router or reverse dns.
>
> I'm talking about how much to 'reserve' as minimum for a point-to-point
> link or for a service.
>
>
…


>
> It's not preventing use of a smaller prefix, it's preventing
> assigning/sub-allocating less than a /64 for anything.


…


> Well, I used to work as an IPRA at the RIPE NCC and my understanding of
> the policy then (and now) was that assignments and/or sub-allocations of
> anything below a /64 is out of scope and even if one IPv6 address is used
> within a /64, the whole subnet is considered to be used.


While this particular paragraph is fine, the others are less than, uhm,
clear.


>
>> To me, this is the difference between letting me use e.g.
>> 2a01:5b40::80:88:dead:beef:**cafe as the IPv6 address for www.oyet.no
>> <http://www.oyet.no>, and having to use e.g. 2a01:5b40:88:cafe::1/64.
>>
>
> I don't actually see it like that. You can still use the whole IPv6
> address to number a device, it's just that you can not split a /64 for
> different services.
>
> For example, you can use a /64 to number, let's say, 100 devices that are
> in the same vlan doing the same thing and providing the same service but
> you can not number 100 different customers within a /64.
>

… because of this.

This doesn't make sense.

Why can I not number 100 (or indeed, hundreds of thousands of) addresses
for different websites within a /64?

I think, perhaps, that the words "customer", "service" etc. are poorly
defined and lead to significant misunderstanding, and that I have not made
myself clear.

Whatever a hosting provider chooses to do with their IPv6 space to perform
comparatively fine-grained routing and other network organization, should
be pretty much irrelevant, as long as what's exposed to peers is sane.

The example I came with is not randomly chosen, I know there has been
similar issues with the understanding of semantics in IPv4 policy, which
according to some NCC members seemed to imply that it would be impossible
to use a separate IPv4 address per SSL site without comparatively major
bureaucracy, since (the argument went) these addresses should be assigned
and registered.

Now you seem to be telling me that I cannot have a single webserver serving
two different websites with two different IPv6 addresses, if they are both
within the same /64.

If this is really the case, IPv6 is, within RIPE, a 64-bit address space,
not a 128-bit address space, and depletion is guaranteed to become a
problem with the proposed policy, as well as the current policy,
considering that every hosting provider would need _many_ /32 allocations,
as I understand the policy and the argument you make.

If, however, we consider IPv6 an 128-bit address space, and the rightmost
/64 as simply not governed by RIPE policy, then a /48 is a _humongous_
address space, providing a LIR with 65k networks which may be redelegated
to lower-level customers, such as e.g. web hosting providers, as long as
these are routed as a /64 block.

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131001/8d111323/attachment.html>