[lir-wg] IPv6 assignments to RIPE itself
Alexander Gall gall at switch.ch
Wed Jan 15 10:14:34 CET 2003
[Probably opening a can of worms here...] On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:54:50 +0100, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> said: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:17:06PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> > But the IETF in their infinite wisdom decided that this is not what >> > people will want, so you're supposed to give them a /48. Which, for >> >> RFC 3177 explains in great detail the rationale behind this >> recommendation. I suggest to read it. > The recommendation is pretty useless as it doesn't define what a "site" > (or a "single edge network") is. The reasoning in that document is heavily based on the statement that there is enough address space to give a /48 to everybody and their dogs. With this assumption (which, I believe, is fairly sound by itself), you don't need a precise definition of a site (``when in doubt, assign a /48''). I think that RFC3177 is self-consistent in that respect. But see below. [snip] > If we accept the argument that "there is no shortage of /48s" and hand > out /48s freely to all individual employees of a customer, or to each > individual student of a university, then this will deplete the LIRs /32 > pretty quickly (a university with 35.000 students might easily use up > a /32 on their own). Which is not what people envisioned when the > current IPv6 allocation policy was made, obviously. I agree. The numerics in section 4 of RFC3177 assume that the top 45 bits in 2000::/3 can be utilized with an H ratio of 0.25 (giving on the order of 10^11 /48). IMHO, the problem with the current allocation policy is that it is a lot more conservative than RFC3177 suggests while still holding on to the /48-for-everybody rule. The relatively small LIR allocations create a level of scarcity in the number of /48's, which is enough to make people believe that giving a student as much address space as her entire University is just crazy. However, the whole point of RFC3177 was that this should be completely irrelevant. > Also, this practice would be violating RFC 3177: > - Very large subscribers could receive a /47 or slightly shorter > prefix, or multiple /48's. > - which makes it pretty clear that an enterprise should not receive a > /42 just because their employees want a /48 each. > Now how are you going to solve that riddle? I think this contradiction exists mainly within the current allocation policy. RFC3177 seems to be flexible (or vague ;-) enough. With a policy in which such an enterprise can act as a (sub-)LIR as well as a site, they could get a large block from which they can assign a /48 to each employee as well as to their own network. Thus, their enterprise network would be as much a site as the homes of the employees, even though it provides transit to them. But this is already done today, isn't it? We (SWITCH) hold a /32 as LIR but our network (which I consider to be a site) is a /48 out of that block. > (A viable solution would be to give every LIR a /20. But last time I > proposed that, people were Not Amused, accused me of wasting address > space and flatly refused to accept that as a new policy...) That seems to be the dilemma: on the one hand, we should be a lot more liberal if we want to implement the recommendations of RFC3177. On the other hand, we are very reluctant to do that as long as we don't have very strong arguments that such a policy will actually work in the long run. Alex -- __________ SWITCH - The Swiss Education and Research Network __________ Alexander Gall, SWITCH, Limmatquai 138, CH-8001 Zurich, Switzerland gall at switch.ch Tel: +41 1 268 1522 Fax: +41 1 268 1568
[ lir-wg Archives ]