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] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 15:49:28 CEST 2013
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 11:11:05AM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote: > > 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. > > But do we want to state that? In web hosting environments, it's not > uncommon to have 100 different customers on the very same hardware, each > of them using a different IP(v6) address - and with vserver/jail type > setups, each of them is typically only using a single address (unlike VM > style setups where you might want to use "more"). > > Do we mandate (or even "encourage") using 100 different /64s for that > purpose? I'd say "no" :-) - let the ISP do that if they *want*, but > do not *mandate* it. > I think that was a nice way of rephrasing part of my point, thanks Gert! Another point is that these kinds of "customers" are far more ephemeral than what I believe RIPE policy is meant to regulate. The relationship between web site (or web virtualhost, if you like) and IP address is a many-to-many relationship: www.oyet.no has one IPv4 and one IPv6 address, but could've had several. www.ipv6.oyet.no could have a different IPv6 address, but still be the same "customer". But the IPv6 address used by www.ipv6.oyet.no could also be serving www.ipv6.onepocket.no, a different "customer". And in either case, the IPv6 address used for this purpose may not really be _assigned_ as such, but rather used temporarily, until the website(s) in question is moved to a different server or virtual server with different routing, or merely different address space segmentation. I imagine that e.g. Amazon or similar large-scale operations would be unhappy having to segment their space in the manner I understood the proposal at first. If the horse ain't dead yet, I'm happy to flog it a bit more by going into practical, human-readable IPv6 address segmentation for keeping address manageable. ;) -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131004/5fc08c8b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]