Hello Ondřej, list,
the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users.
There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to
the wireless networks.
In Regards to the alliance out of some freifunk communities to obtain a
PA-block:
I don't think it makes any difference if there are 8 more prefixes /32
(from PA) or /48 (from PI) in the DFZ.
Count of prefixes in the DFZ would be the same for both scenarios.
Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would
be a waste of addresses.
Besides the costs of a LIR membership won't be easy to afford event not
for 8 communities.
@Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4.
Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured:
"IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service
provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service
provider's infrastructure."
That problem has already been identified. (page 8)
https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf
Thanks,
Thomas
Am 19.06.2015 21:52, schrieb Ondřej Caletka:
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.
