Dne 19.6.2015 v 13:56 Thomas Drewermann napsal(a): > Dear colleagues, > > we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk > Community in germany. > They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on > their own. > As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used > to lease addresses to clients/users. > According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space.
Hello Thomas, list, I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give a single /64 to customer, are you? On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots, comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated. > > Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically > can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the > current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table. I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees. What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 addreses that could be assigned to customers. > > I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be > used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients > are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI > assignment e.g. via wifi. I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really need them, thus flodding the global routing table. Best regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET > > The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address > provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for > usage by the connecting client/user/customer. > > How do you think about that situation? > What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? > > Regards > Thomas Drewermann > Freifunk Rheinland e.V.
smime.p7s
Description: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
