From owner-ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net Sun Mar 7 11:15:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA26151; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:12:41 GMT Received: from lint.cisco.com (lint.cisco.com [171.68.224.209]) by alpha (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26145; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:12:38 GMT Received: from pfs-laptop.cisco.com (singapore-robo-dial13.cisco.com [171.70.160.13]) by lint.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id DAA04179; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 03:12:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990306171458.0094c5f0@lint.cisco.com> Message-Id: <4.1.19990306171458.0094c5f0@lint.cisco.com> X-Sender: philsmit@lint.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 21:09:30 +1000 To: ipv6-registry@apnic.net From: Philip Smith (by way of Philip Smith ) Subject: [ipv6-registry] Re: IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT (3rd draft) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ipv6-registry@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hello everyone, I forwarded the following comments re the IPv6 assignment and allocation policy document to the IPv6 Working Group at RIPE. I'm forwarding here for information and further discussion from the AP region. " Some comments on the IPv6 policy draft document and the IAB comments. Hopefully these can be considered by the registries for the next revision. I decided not to take the document and analyse sections of it; rather I think we should collectively step back and look at the problem we are trying to address (no pun intended). What the document does not cover sufficiently: - Internet Exchange Points - newcomers to the IPv6 transit service - what is meant by a "customer" - what is meant by "transit" It is my understanding that the address design of IPv6 intended a subTLA (and later, a TLA) to be allocated to transit providers only, not leaf providers. The document doesn't declare this. A transit provider is a service provider who accepts routing information from a customer AS or peer AS, into his AS, and then announces that routing information to another customer AS or peer AS. Those of us who configure routers and run ISP backbones use this definition. It is my opinion that these service providers are the ones who qualify for subTLAs. "customers" are service providers who connect to transit providers as defined above. Service providers could be enterprise networks who have their own AS appearing in the Internet routing table for multihoming or management purposes. They could be ISPs as we know them in the commercial world, or they could be educational establishments; all have their own AS. These "customers" would be the organisations I'd envisage qualifying for NLA address space. These "customers" would assign address space to the end users. Using these definitions, look at the numbers. How many transit providers have 100 customers in the relationship as defined above. Well, a straw poll on the routing table shows very very few. 100 is too big, and I agree with the IAB that 10 may be a more realistic number. Secondly, IXPs. These are not mentioned, but I think we need separate paragraphs to cover IXPs. I'd suggest that an IXP would qualify for a subTLA provided they have a public document showing a memorandum of understanding, or a signed agreement, that the peering relationship between service providers at that location forms an IXP. Maybe a minimum of 10 service providers could realistically qualify such an operation as an IXP. Same barrier to entry as "transit" providers. 100 is definitely too high. Newcomers. Work needed here, and probably the most difficult one to properly define. Some businesses may wish to only offer IPv6 transit services. If they can show business relationships to provide transit services (defined above) to "customers" defined above, they should qualify for a subTLA. (By "relationships" I mean signed contracts or commitments from potential customers to "buy" transit services.) Build in safeguards re deployment etc, but allow for up to 2 years. We aren't switching IPv4 off one day, and IPv6 on the next. Now to a reality check. Using my definitions above, I analysed the current IPv4 Internet routing table. It makes interesting reading! - There are 4619 ASes originating networks in the Internet routing table today, 5th March. - There are 1608 ASes providing transit services in the Internet today. This is the number of providers who are providing connectivity to ASes originating networks. Rather than constructing complex rules about allocation to existing providers, we have the solution above. 1608 ASes are providing IPv4 transit services, so 1608 ASes qualify for subTLA space. Give it to them now, and they have two years to do something with it. If they don't do anything with it, revoke it. Second, the ASes which are originating networks are the service providers who will receive NLA address space from the subTLA holders. Some originating ASes will be transit providers too, but then this is why the hierarchy has been built into the address scheme... Wasting address space? I think not. 1608 transit ASes is 1608 of 8192 possible subTLAs. 1608 routes in the IPv6 routing table is tiny compared with the potential 16384 defined by RFC2450 in FP 001 IPv6 space. We'll need significant growth of the Internet to use all 8192 subTLAs. Yes, that is a huge amount of address space relative to the IPv4 Internet, but it is still only one of 8192 TLAs in one eighth of the total IPv6 address space. People "dusting off" ASes in their back pocket? Well, you need to do a lot of dusting off to become a transit service provider, especially if you have to show that you are providing transit to at least 10 other ASes. No danger there, provided "transit" is defined. People rushing to get ASes so they can get a subTLA? Well, same applies. You need to provide transit service. If newcomers sign business agreements or contracts with 10 other ASes (same barrier as existing service providers), then they too should qualify. And remember, the registries don't assign ASes unless you are multihoming between different ISPs. I hope this is useful and can act as a reality check - I hope we introduce a system whereby service providers from all parts of the industry and the world are encouraged to deploy IPv6. The document in its current form is an excellent first step at tackling the issue but I hope it can be enhanced to encourage further development and deployment of IPv6. best wishes! philip -- Philip F Smith || || Consulting Engineering, Office of the CTO, || || Cisco Systems Inc, #13/80 Albert St, |||| |||| Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. Tel: +61 7 3238 8802, Mobile: +61 418 258376 c i s c o S y s t e m s IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net From owner-ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net Tue Mar 9 05:07:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA25023; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 04:51:58 GMT Received: from gateway.staff.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by alpha (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA25019 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 04:51:57 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by gateway.staff.apnic.net (8.8.7/SCO5) id OAA19339 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:51:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by gateway.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma019337; Tue, 9 Mar 99 14:51:56 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id EAA06215 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 04:51:56 GMT Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:51:56 +1000 (EST) From: Paul Gampe X-Sender: paulg@hadrian To: ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ipv6-registry@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hi All, As there is a lot of overlap in discussions, would there be any objects to me subscribing this list to RIPE's v6@ripe.net mailing list so we can get a copy of their discussions as well? Paulg. IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net From owner-ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net Tue Mar 9 15:16:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA26827; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:15:50 GMT Received: from lint.cisco.com (lint.cisco.com [171.68.224.209]) by alpha (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA26821 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:15:48 GMT Received: from pfs-laptop.cisco.com (singapore-robo-dial14.cisco.com [171.70.160.14]) by lint.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id HAA01052; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 07:15:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990310011342.00977100@lint.cisco.com> X-Sender: philsmit@lint.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:15:00 +1000 To: Paul Gampe From: Philip Smith Subject: [ipv6-registry] Re: Cc: ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ipv6-registry@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Paul, Sounds like a good idea, but may be polite to inform the RIPE list first that their discussions are going further afield. Also, do ARIN have a similar discussion list? philip -- At 14:51 09/03/99 +1000, Paul Gampe wrote: >Hi All, > >As there is a lot of overlap in discussions, would there be any objects to >me subscribing this list to RIPE's v6@ripe.net mailing list so we can get >a copy of their discussions as well? > >Paulg. > >IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 >To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net Philip F Smith || || Consulting Engineering, Office of the CTO, || || Cisco Systems Inc, #13/80 Albert St, |||| |||| Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. Tel: +61 7 3238 8802, Mobile: +61 418 258376 c i s c o S y s t e m s IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net From owner-ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net Wed Mar 10 01:06:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id BAA05369; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:05:50 GMT Received: from axp400a.csc.cuhk.edu.hk (axp400a.csc.cuhk.edu.hk [137.189.6.23]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA05348 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:05:45 GMT Received: from pc29107.csc.cuhk.edu.hk by idea.csc.cuhk.edu.hk (PMDF V4.3-8 #D3368) id <01J8NRF456348WW4UQ@idea.csc.cuhk.edu.hk>; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:06:33 +0800 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:07:02 +0800 From: Che-Hoo Cheng Subject: Re: [ipv6-registry] Re: In-reply-to: <4.1.19990310011342.00977100@lint.cisco.com> X-Sender: a563700@mailserv.cuhk.edu.hk To: Philip Smith , Paul Gampe Cc: ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net Message-id: <3.0.5.32.19990310090702.01134390@mailserv.cuhk.edu.hk> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-ipv6-registry@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi Paul & Philip, I support your ideas. At 01:15 AM 3/10/99 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: >Paul, > >Sounds like a good idea, but may be polite to inform the RIPE list first >that their discussions are going further afield. > >Also, do ARIN have a similar discussion list? > >philip >-- > >At 14:51 09/03/99 +1000, Paul Gampe wrote: >>Hi All, >> >>As there is a lot of overlap in discussions, would there be any objects to >>me subscribing this list to RIPE's v6@ripe.net mailing list so we can get >>a copy of their discussions as well? >> >>Paulg. >> >>IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 >>To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net > > >Philip F Smith || || >Consulting Engineering, Office of the CTO, || || >Cisco Systems Inc, #13/80 Albert St, |||| |||| >Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. >Tel: +61 7 3238 8802, Mobile: +61 418 258376 c i s c o S y s t e m s >IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 >To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net > > Che-Hoo Cheng Data Comms and Networking Section Information Technology Service Unit The Chinese University of Hong Kong IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net From owner-ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net Wed Mar 10 01:27:46 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id BAA07742; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:27:42 GMT Received: from gateway.staff.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA07738 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:27:40 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by gateway.staff.apnic.net (8.8.7/SCO5) id LAA28160; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:27:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from wrk-8.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.71) by gateway.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma028156; Wed, 10 Mar 99 11:27:22 +1000 From: "Paul Wilson" To: "'Che-Hoo Cheng'" , "'Philip Smith'" , "'Paul Gampe'" Cc: Subject: RE: [ipv6-registry] Re: IPv6 mailing list Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:27:21 +1000 Message-ID: <015001be6a95$2549d6a0$4701a8c0@wilson.staff.apnic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990310090702.01134390@mailserv.cuhk.edu.hk> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ipv6-registry@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The public mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE is , but as this is a specific list for a RIPE working group, I suggest that the participants in this list will need to be consulted as well. If it is OK with them, I think it's a good idea to share the list. Paul (W). ______________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General Asia Pacific Network Information Centre ph +61 7 3367 0490 http://www.apnic.net fx +61 7 3367 0482 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ipv6-registry@apnic.net > [mailto:owner-ipv6-registry@apnic.net]On Behalf Of Che-Hoo Cheng > Sent: Wednesday, 10 March 1999 11:07 > To: Philip Smith; Paul Gampe > Cc: ipv6-registry@ns.apnic.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-registry] Re: > > > Hi Paul & Philip, > > I support your ideas. > > At 01:15 AM 3/10/99 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: > >Paul, > > > >Sounds like a good idea, but may be polite to inform the > RIPE list first > >that their discussions are going further afield. > > > >Also, do ARIN have a similar discussion list? > > > >philip > >-- > > > >At 14:51 09/03/99 +1000, Paul Gampe wrote: > >>Hi All, > >> > >>As there is a lot of overlap in discussions, would there be > any objects to > >>me subscribing this list to RIPE's v6@ripe.net mailing list > so we can get > >>a copy of their discussions as well? > >> > >>Paulg. > >> > >>IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 > >>To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to > ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net > > > > > >Philip F Smith || > || > >Consulting Engineering, Office of the CTO, || > || > >Cisco Systems Inc, #13/80 Albert St, > |||| |||| > >Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia > ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. > >Tel: +61 7 3238 8802, Mobile: +61 418 258376 c i s c > o S y s t e m s > >IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 > >To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net > > > > > > Che-Hoo Cheng > Data Comms and Networking Section > Information Technology Service Unit > The Chinese University of Hong Kong > IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 > To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net > IPv6-Registry: A list to discuss developing a registry for IPv6 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to ipv6-registry-request@apnic.net