[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy

Anno domini 2015 Gert Doering scripsit:

Hi,

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote:
> > the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users.
> > There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to
> > the wireless networks.

> So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind
> his router?  User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading?

Hell no :)

There is no "his router".

> I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach.

There seems to be a fundamental misunterstanding:

  A user in this case is a human using his/her/its
  mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi
  network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a
  local Freifunk node).

  It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the
  Freifunk network to connect own network, so by definition there is no
  need for NAT. (There are some considerations to used routed /64
  inside the Freifunk mesh network instead of a large L2 segment but
  even then there would be no intended scenario where anyone would
  connect some non-Freifunk router.)

  We provide an access network for single devices not for (home)
  networks and by no means plan on changing that.

> [..]
> > Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would
> > be a waste of addresses.

> The whole point of IPv6 is to have plenty of addresses - and as there are
> 4 billion /32s, using one to give your users at least a /64 is the *right*
> way to waste addresses.  Do not encourage anyone to use NAT66.

This is not an intended scenario for a Freifunk network. We don't want
to be in competition with any regular ISP. And we certianly won't
encourage anyone to use NAT66.

> > @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4.
> > Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured:
> > "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service 
> > provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service 
> > provider's infrastructure."
> > 
> > That problem has already been identified. (page 8)
> > https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf

> Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs
> to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world.

Well how about single IP address without NAT?

> Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever
> brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI.

> (Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do.  I can
> understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional
> ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial
> basis and needs IPv6 addresses.  So using PA space from a friendly ISP in
> the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable
> solution...  yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now
> the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses,
> I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot
> in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it".  We might
> want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but
> that's a topic for the AGM to decide...)

IMHO that would be something worth a discussion.

Kind regards
Max
Freifunk Paderborn / Freifunk Rheinland
-- 
If it doesn't work, force it.
If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.