[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?

Hi,

I¹ve not  been able to attend RIPE this time, neither follow the streaming,
so may be I missed something (if so, please point me to any relevant
document) but my point of view is that we need to be much more flexible here
about what we assign to each site.

I don¹t really think we need to define what is a site. We have attempted
that so many times, that is clear that everyone can have their own view, and
be right.

The reasons why it was decided /48 had been explained several times in
several foras, so I will not repeat that.

Instead I want to make clear that I completely disagree with the /60 choice,
and will much prefer to keep the /48 as today in RFC3177 (see also
http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=604).

This provides a good balance for the existing IPv6 addressing space for so
many years, in my opinion that we will not need to worry about IP and
instead may be we will have a totally different protocol by then. At the
same time provides a broad enough perspective for deployment of Ambient
Intelligence (Ubiquitous computing or whatever you like to call it),
smarthomes, etc.

I think choices such as being able to have a separate subnet (/64) for every
service provider in a home is very important in terms of security and
privacy. Note that I call here service provider not to the ISP (access
provider), but for example the freezer manufacturer or maintenance service.

I want to be able to have in different VLANs, for example, the manufacturer
of the freezer and the washing machine. But also want to be able to provide
a separate VLAN (again is just an example of a possible way to provide a
service separation) for the supermarket that provides the fish, another for
the one for the meat, milk, etc.

Not allocating a /48 will increase the risk for renumbering when more and
more services are being deployed. This is then creating an artificial
barrier, and actually is not good for the ISPs, because they can¹t easily
increase and support the number of services which can be easily created with
no addressing space restrictions, and that can bring NEW business to them,
as they become service aggregators without increasing their management cost
(but *increasing* revenues !). Of course this is also bad for the users.

I really think considering this, 16 or 256 subnets is really extremely short
and limiting.

Regards,
Jordi





De: "@UUNET SE Ip" <ip at se.uu.net>
Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" <ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net>
Fecha: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:44:00 +0100
Para: "'ipv6-wg at ripe.net'" <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?

Hi.
 
Following the discussion about /48 boundaries I'd like a better definition
of what a site is.
 
My definition of an end-user site is the office where we (MCI/UUNET) install
a circuit. This could be a large office or a small bransch office or
anything in between.
Each office is handled separately and they request IPv4 addresses per
office. Adopting this to IPv6 it would mean that each office would get a
/48. This is too much for many of them.
Approx. 80-90% of our sites request 32 IP-addresses or less and most likely
only subnet it 2 or 4 times if they ever subnet it.
 
Furthermore we never get a complete network design for all branch offices if
the customer is transnational  or even national so we can't really assign a
/48 to the customer for him to subnet among his offices. We can of course
change our procedures to accomomodate thisbut this will make things a lot
more difficult for us as a LIR and also the customer.
 
We can't decide how many addresses to assign to a customer based on size or
revenue. 
 
What I want is a clear definition of what a site is by having more
catagories. but I don't want a floating boundary as catagories do simplyfies
things.
 
I also include my suggestions based on where I'm coming from :-)
/60 for home networks (16 networks)
/56 for enterprises (small/medium) (256 networks)
/48 for large enterprises (65000 networks)
/47 or more for "very large subscribers"
/64 for mobile phones (w/ bluetooth or 802.11b)
/128 for dialup PC
 
Please note that I'm not a routing expert nor am I a experienced in the
complete IPv6 concept with mobil users and consumers goods etc. My main area
is IP-address administration. I administrate IP-networks for MCI/UUNET in
almost all of Europe except DE, AT and CH.
 
I haven't read the RFC's related to this so my mind is wide open ;-)
 
Best regards
Patrick Arkley
Supervisor IP/DNS-team
SKSC/SKRC

MCI - Powered by UUNET
Armégatan 38
S-171 04 Solna, Sweden
Web: www.se.mci.com <http://www.se.mci.com/>

Phone direct: +46 (0)8 5661 7075
Fax: +46 (0)8 5661 7236
Mobile: +46 (0)733 11 20 75
VNET: 915-7075
E-mail: patrick.arkley at se.mci.com

Initial Call team [VPN]: +46 (0)8 5661 7899 or
emea-ip-vpn-initial-call at se.mci.com
Registry: +46 (0)8 5661 7454 or registry at se.uu.net
 <mailto:registry at se.uu.net> IP-team: +46 (0)8 5661 7629 or ip at se.uu.net



 

 
 





************************************
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Registration open. Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.