As I understand it, if the ISP assigned you a /48 and individually routed the /64s for you, they would only have to create a single SWIP entry for the /48, and the street address of your central location (or your administrative HQ, if different) would be perfectly appropriate for that SWIP.
I agree that eliminating the need to SWIP /64s and residential /56s would be good, and still support the general idea of this proposal (and most of the variations that have been proposed thus far). However, I think this use case does highlight the need to make sure that we *do* consider requiring SWIP of /48 aggregates like the one your ISP is assigning you, even if they're routing the pieces of that aggregate independently to different "sites". -Scott On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to give an example of why the current /64 or more rule for > IPv6 SWIP vs IPv4 is an issue for a project I am working on: > > I am working on a project to enable public IPv6 on Public Transit busses. > Currently we have a public V4 address assigned by the winner of a State > Government Contract with a major wireless provider used for each bus in the > fleet, which is in excess of 1000 busses. Originally we used this > connection only for administrative use, such as communicating the real time > location of each bus back to headquarters and access to cameras and > reporting in an emergency. In the last few months, we added an additional > RFC1918 IPv4 private address subnet so that a wireless access point for > public wifi is available on each bus. In order to address the > administrative equipment from headquarters, we must have a static address > to connect to. > > Because it is a State Government contract, the major wireless provider > still has to provide us public, static IPv4 addresses until the end of this > contract, which is Sept 30, 2018. This major provider has publiclly > announced that they will no longer provide Static IPv4 addresses to anyone, > and we have been told they will not bid on the next contract if that > contract would require an option to assign static v4 addresses like the > current contract, as they are leasing the IPv4 addresses we are using. We > have been told if we want Static assignments, they now must be only IPv6, > and they will provide up to a /56 for each bus out of a /48 of their space > assigned to all our busses. > > Thus, there is a plan to put the administrative parts of the busses onto > IPv6 before the end of the contract. We wont care if the carrier v4 address > is static, public, or even CGnat, as it would then only be only used for > the public v4 wifi. We might also consider a PI v6 allocation from ARIN if > they will route it to us. This would keep us from having to renumber if > the State Contract provider changes, and a /48 of space would be plenty for > all v6 use. > > Here is the SWIP issue: > > The major provider according to the current rules must SWIP each static > "Serving site"(NRPM 2.14), which in this case is a transit bus. Each bus > is its own account with the wireless provider, and will have its own static > IPv6 network and IPv4 address assigned. > > NRPM 2.12 requires each SWIP entry must contain Street Address, City, > State, and Zip Code. How can I give a Street Address for a mobile serving > site as required by NPRM 2.12? Each bus covers 200-300 miles a day, and > about 1/2 do not return to our central location during any portion of their > daily trips. I am sure that the abuse address for the SWIP will attract > attention because of public wifi on each bus, and our intent to enable v6 > connections on each "Serving Site" (Transit Bus) including the public wifi. > > If the current proposal at more than a /60, or a greater amount such as > more than a /56 is adopted, the wireless provider no longer has to SWIP > each site (Transit Bus) just like v4. This would allow us to avoid having > to SWIP each "Serving Site" as the current IPv6 rules would require and > keep us legal with the policy manual. > > If the community comes out against relaxing the IPv6 SWIP rules, my only > other choices are to hope the wireless provider will ignore the NRPM, or > write another proposal to add language to 2.12 to allow mobile "Serving > Sites" to be registered to a central location to avoid the street address > and city problem with mobile "Serving Sites". The wireless provider is > unlikely to allow all the busses to be SWIP'ed to the Central site because > they would be the one trying to explain to ARIN why 1000 networks are all > registered at the same location. > > This was never an issue with IPv4, as each bus has only one IPv4 address, > which did not trigger any SWIP requirement. This example also shows how > the different treatment of v4 and v6 affects small users of v6. > > I Would love to hear some input as to the issue of dealing with "Serving > Sites" that are mobile (like Transit Busses), or do not have a street > address assigned, like some of the rural WISP sites I work with including > my own home. If I decided to put a non residental circuit there that > includes any amount of IPv6, it would not be able to be SWIP'ed as I have > no Street Address and the rules do not allow the field to be left blank. > What then??? > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
