Hi Gert,
So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind
his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading?
I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach.
[..]
There won't be user's/customer's networks behind. All routers are part
of the Freifunk infrastructure.
All users will be on temporary basis like a guest network. Form them
there will be no use for more than a single address.
We are not going to use IPv6 NAT/Masquerading neither are we encouraging
anyone to do so.
@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
Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs
to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world.
I think a device like a user's cell phone or laptop connecting doesn't
need more the a single address.
And everyone needing a subnet must operate a Freifunk router on his/her own.
This router will be then part of the Freifunk community's infrastructure.
So he/she operating a part of the infrastructure won't be considered a user.
So there will be no problem in usage of the PI space except a "guest"
user connecting temporarily.
Because their devices won't be considered as part of the Freifunk
communities infrastructure.
Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever
brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI.
Will it be legimate to use adresses out of an PI assignment to lease
them to users connecting temporarily?
Besides the Freifunk use case there are some company's guest networks
which have the same need.
I don't think that the policy contains a statement about that. What do
you think?
(Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can
understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional
ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial
basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in
the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable
solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now
the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses,
I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot
in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might
want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but
that's a topic for the AGM to decide...)
The Freifunk community I requested the PI space for doesn't demand a
free ride.
I tought that PI AS/space is the legitimate way for small orgs to get a
slot in the global routing system. Isn't that the case?
The key difference between Freifunk and ISP business is that there is no
service providing to anyone except temporary wireless users.
Everyone who wants more than just to use the network temporarily must
operate his/her own router and get part of the Freifunk community's
infrastructure.
The Freifunk communitiy is no instituation you can order a network
service from. That's why there are no assignments of /64 to users.
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
Thanks,
Thomas
