[lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote:
[..]
> > But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to
> > know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only
> > having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing
> > connectivity to organisations with a /48.
> > -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy!
> 
> The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in
> the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was 
> agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May.
> 
> An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need
> to meet all four requirements specified in the policy.
> 
>    <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#initial_criteria>

This comment is not too helpful.  Of course those are the rules :-)

The problem I see is that the policy explicitely specifies "assigns /48s",
which is what "we" assumed to be the generic case for the ISP -> customer
relation.

On the other hand, RIPE-246 explicitly specifies the use of smaller
prefixes for special cases:

--------------- quote ----------------
5.4.1. Assignment address space size 
   
   Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing
   guidelines [RFC3177,RIRs-on-48], which are summarized here as:

     * /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers

     * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by
       design

     * /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device
       is connecting.
  
   RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP
   actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the
   detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4,
--------------- quote ----------------

Looking at the number of potential IPv6 customers of a mobile network
operator, assigning each of them a /48 does't make much sense.

On the other hand, even when assigning each end customer a /64, 
and aggregating at cell boundaries (for example), the mobile network 
is likely to make better usage of the IPv6 space than many smaller
ISPs that do match the letter of the "200 /48" rule.

I, personally, think that a mobile network operator really should be 
able to get an IPv6 allocation - if not them, who else?  And I also
see that at least one of them already has one (DE-D2VODAFONE,
2001:0928::/32).

So I think a clarification is needed - maybe the wording of the policy
document has to be changed to make very explicit that this is acceptable 
usage, something like this:

-------------- proposal ------------
     c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it
     will assign /48s or /64s according to 5.4.1, by advertising that 
     connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and
     
     d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
     organisations within two years, or plan to assign "enough" (to be
     defined) /64s to be equivalent to 200 /48s.
-------------- proposal ------------

one could apply HD ratio to the /64s inside the /48s, like "it's valid
if <hd-ratio>% /64s out of a /40 are assigned", a /40 being "about 200 /48s".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  48540  (48282)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299