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

Hi Jan,

thank you for your reply and sorry for the top posting.

I got your point and I will ask the RIPE NCC hostmaster to add back the 
sentence that we removed by mistake.

For the next version we also need to decide whether:

- we should be strict and restrict what you can do within a /64
- we should not care what happens within the /64, it's the decision of 
the address space user.

This is an other point for a slide at the RIPE Meeting :-)

cheers,
elvis

On 10/1/13 11:44 AM, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu
> <mailto: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>
>         <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