[db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT

william(at)elan.net wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2004, leo vegoda wrote:
> 
> 
>>The point was that while all /48 assignments must be registered, they 
>>don't all need to be registered in Whois. I think the expectation is 
>>that the vast majority of address space users will have their address 
>>space registered in the LIR's private, internal database and not the 
>>public, Whois database. The drafters of the policy text had only 
>>intended to require registration in Whois when a single organisation 
>>received more than a /48.
> 
> 
> I would urge you to reconsider. With IPv6 it is expected that almost all 
> assignments to customers will actually be /48 as very very few customers
> actually need anything more then that (even large companies that currently
> might have /19 can be fine with /48 ip6). 

The problem is that IPSc could (and regarding what I hear would) give 
out /48s to ther end users [if there is a chance they need more than one 
subnet]. In our case you would probably end up with ~30000 /48 assigned 
that way - and as a university we do not have that many DSL end-users.

But what about the really big ISPs? At the moment the Ripe DB contains 
slightly over 1.000.000 Objects. if those ISPs register every /48 they 
assign, you end up with orders of magnitude more objects - and a 
consderable higher update-rate.

The deeper reason is that the way IPv6 addresses are handed out and the 
Space is devided, you can have end-users occupying the same IP space as 
big companies.

*If* we rethink the policy, aiming at the prefix-length is imho not the 
way to do that.

lG uk
-- 
Ulrich Kiermayr         Zentraler Informatikdienst der Universitaet Wien
Network - Security - ACOnet-CERT   Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien, AT

eMail:      ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at       Tel: (+43 1) 4277 / 14104
PGP Key-ID: 0xA8D764D8                         Fax: (+43 1) 4277 /  9140