Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi Peter, At 08:20 20-08-2013, Peter Koch wrote: just so i can remain lazy: what was the reference again? And why would that void a recommendation? See RFC 6177. Regards, -sm
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi, On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:51:35AM -0300, Arturo Servin wrote: > My personal opinion is that this is not black and white. > > There are things about PI that belong to RIRs policies, some other > technical recommendations to the IETF, some other to *NOGs and probably > something in between that fit in all of them. We're not disagreeing here :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
My personal opinion is that this is not black and white. There are things about PI that belong to RIRs policies, some other technical recommendations to the IETF, some other to *NOGs and probably something in between that fit in all of them. This is and will be a complex topic and trying to fit in just one space of the Internet ecosystem I think is not good. My 20 cents, as On 8/21/13 5:58 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > What I do object to is if people start discussions on IETF lists about > whether or not RIRs should give out IPv6 PI space, or how big an ISP's > allocation from it's RIR should be - this is really what the local > RIR constituencies must agree upon, not the IETF. Even if it's tricky, > as, of course, there is just one Internet, but 5 RIRs and 5 communities.
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 22 Aug 2013, at 07:11, David Conrad wrote: > On Aug 21, 2013, at 1:06 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they > delegated responsibility to IANA >>> >>> Wait. What? >> >> IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA. It's called >> "delegation", which goes along with "not meddling with it anymore". >> >> IANA, in turn, gave it to the RIRs, and policy is now made by the RIR >> constituencies, not by IETF or IANA. >> >> But you know all that already, so what about the sentence above (except >> my blunder) is upsetting you? > > Not upset. Confused by your (since fixed) reference to ARIN. > > However, for the record, the IETF never had responsibility for address > distribution. They maintain the same role they always had, namely "the > non-policy aspects of Internet addressing such as the architectural > definition of IP address and AS number spaces and specification of associated > technical goals and constraints in their application, assignment of > specialized address blocks, and experimental technical assignments" (wording > from 2050bis). > While it is true that most allocation policy is now defined in a bottom-up > fashion, this doesn't mean the IANA can't "meddle". In theory, at least, the > IANA is still at the root of the address allocation/policy hierarchy (hence > some of the more fun 'discussions' about the root of the RPKI). > > Pedantically yours, > -drc Technically, I think the IETF, through the IPng WG, managed 3ffe::/16 in the old 6bone days, allocating a few hundred prefixes to test sites. But 3ffe::/16 was chosen by IANA for the "experiment", iirc. Tim
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On Aug 21, 2013, at 1:06 AM, Gert Doering wrote: The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they delegated responsibility to IANA >> >> Wait. What? > > IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA. It's called > "delegation", which goes along with "not meddling with it anymore". > > IANA, in turn, gave it to the RIRs, and policy is now made by the RIR > constituencies, not by IETF or IANA. > > But you know all that already, so what about the sentence above (except > my blunder) is upsetting you? Not upset. Confused by your (since fixed) reference to ARIN. However, for the record, the IETF never had responsibility for address distribution. They maintain the same role they always had, namely "the non-policy aspects of Internet addressing such as the architectural definition of IP address and AS number spaces and specification of associated technical goals and constraints in their application, assignment of specialized address blocks, and experimental technical assignments" (wording from 2050bis). While it is true that most allocation policy is now defined in a bottom-up fashion, this doesn't mean the IANA can't "meddle". In theory, at least, the IANA is still at the root of the address allocation/policy hierarchy (hence some of the more fun 'discussions' about the root of the RPKI). Pedantically yours, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi, On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:42:07PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote: > So how does > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10#section-3.4.1 fit? > Would you say that text is acceptable Gert, given the documents' focus to > more advanced routed IPv6 home networks? I think it's perfectly fine - it describes what implementors will see out there (prefix lengths of arbitrary length, and also *changing* prefixes), and that things will just not work if ISPs are dumb enough to assign just a /64. The guidance by RFC6177 quoted is also not something I feel conflicts with the delegation of management and responsibility to the RIR system - it's good advice "look, we did this new protocol, it's addresses are *so* large that you need to re-think some things, and please make good use out of what we gave you" - things like "one /64 per LAN" are not really "local address policy" either, but "technical decisions". What I do object to is if people start discussions on IETF lists about whether or not RIRs should give out IPv6 PI space, or how big an ISP's allocation from it's RIR should be - this is really what the local RIR constituencies must agree upon, not the IETF. Even if it's tricky, as, of course, there is just one Internet, but 5 RIRs and 5 communities. (Now we have strayed quite far from the original topic, which was about what typical assignment sizes are used in practice by residential ISPs :) ) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 21 Aug 2013, at 21:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 21/08/2013 20:06, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:55:48PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> >> fixing my sentence to avoid more confusion: >> > The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they > delegated responsibility to IANA >>> Wait. What? >> >> IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA. It's called >> "delegation", which goes along with "not meddling with it anymore". > > To be precise, we delegated the address space to IANA in RFC 1881, did > so again in the MoU (RFC 2860), meddled a bit in RFC 2050 and RFC 3177, > and backed off again in RFC 6177 and draft-housley-rfc2050bis. So how does http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10#section-3.4.1 fit? Would you say that text is acceptable Gert, given the documents' focus to more advanced routed IPv6 home networks? Tim
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 21/08/2013 20:06, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:55:48PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > fixing my sentence to avoid more confusion: > The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they delegated responsibility to IANA >> Wait. What? > > IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA. It's called > "delegation", which goes along with "not meddling with it anymore". To be precise, we delegated the address space to IANA in RFC 1881, did so again in the MoU (RFC 2860), meddled a bit in RFC 2050 and RFC 3177, and backed off again in RFC 6177 and draft-housley-rfc2050bis. Brian > IANA, in turn, gave it to the RIRs, and policy is now made by the RIR > constituencies, not by IETF or IANA. > > But you know all that already, so what about the sentence above (except > my blunder) is upsetting you? > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi, On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:55:48PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: fixing my sentence to avoid more confusion: > >> The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they > >> delegated responsibility to IANA > > Wait. What? IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA. It's called "delegation", which goes along with "not meddling with it anymore". IANA, in turn, gave it to the RIRs, and policy is now made by the RIR constituencies, not by IETF or IANA. But you know all that already, so what about the sentence above (except my blunder) is upsetting you? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpfmDAjer0IX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >>> Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... >> >> The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they >> delegated responsibility to ARIN. > > IANA. Fat fingers. Wait. What? Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... > > The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they > delegated responsibility to ARIN. just so i can remain lazy: what was the reference again? And why would that void a recommendation? -Peter
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi, On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... > > The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they > delegated responsibility to ARIN. IANA. Fat fingers. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi, On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:36:10PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those > > regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 > > depends on the ISP alone. > > As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one > needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended > usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for > those purposes. In RIPE land, it's the ISP's decision what size to assign to end users (/64.../48). For HD ratio utilization, the RIPE NCC will count the number of assigned /56s, with a /48 assignment being counted as "256 /56". RIPE policy doesn't answer the question about "residential BCP", though - and that seems to coalesce to "residential = /56, business = /48" when looking at the larger players. > Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they delegated responsibility to ARIN. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi, On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:46:38PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-08-20 16:40 , Arturo Servin wrote: > > > > So it seems that we agree. > > No, we do not agree as your statement is wrong. > > I suggest you read up on: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 Which, quite clearly, says "assign what you want, as long as it's between a /64 and a /48 per end-site" (5.4.1 and 5.4.2). No? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Wrong link (I would ask to add a note to that old link) This is the correct one: http://www.lacnic.net/web/lacnic/manual-4 Allocations criteria to end users refers to RFC6177. So, I do not know in which part we disagree. But it does matter, the important fact is that ISP can chose what allocation to provide to en-users (as long it based in need and under certain technical criteria -RFC6177-) and it is not dictated by the RIR. Regards, as On 8/20/13 11:46 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-08-20 16:40 , Arturo Servin wrote: >> >> So it seems that we agree. > > No, we do not agree as your statement is wrong. > > I suggest you read up on: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 > > and as you claim to work for LACNIC: > http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html > > Greets, > Jeroen > >> On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those > regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 > depends on the ISP alone. >>> As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one >>> needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended >>> usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for >>> those purposes. >>> >>> Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... >>> >>> If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they >>> could just as well just stick with IPv4.
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
* Jeroen Massar > On 2013-08-20 15:37 , Tayeb Meftah wrote: >> Hi guys, >> i am planing a lab to build a Recidential ISP Platform >> i have a tunneled /48 and i cut of 4 of /64 for routing use (OSPFV3) >> what's the current recomandation for recidential IPV6 assignement? > > The recommendation depends on the RIR region, but typically a /48 should > be routed to the customer. In the RIPE region where I believe Tayeb is based, the minimum allowed by policy is a single /64 and there is no maximum (although for larger than /48 paperwork is required). Cf. ripe-589 section 5.4.1. Other than that the policy makes no recommendations. FWIW, my ISP gives me a /60, which works just fine for me. My parents get a /62 from a different ISP. No complaints from them either - but I don't think they have any clue about any of this though. :-) Tore
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 2013-08-20 16:40 , Arturo Servin wrote: > > So it seems that we agree. No, we do not agree as your statement is wrong. I suggest you read up on: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 and as you claim to work for LACNIC: http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html Greets, Jeroen > On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 depends on the ISP alone. >> As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one >> needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended >> usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for >> those purposes. >> >> Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... >> >> If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they >> could just as well just stick with IPv4.
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
So it seems that we agree. .as On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> >It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those >> > regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 >> > depends on the ISP alone. > As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one > needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended > usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for > those purposes. > > Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... > > If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they > could just as well just stick with IPv4.
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
It was a disclaimer only. .as On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-08-20 16:33 , Arturo Servin wrote: >> > >> >I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP >> > decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). > Working for a RIR just means that you are implementing the rules that > are set by that RIRs membership. Thus working for one says little...
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 2013-08-20 16:33 , Arturo Servin wrote: > > I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP > decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). Working for a RIR just means that you are implementing the rules that are set by that RIRs membership. Thus working for one says little... Every RIR has different rules and regulations, and on top of that they keep on changing all the time too. > It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those > regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 > depends on the ISP alone. As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for those purposes. Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they could just as well just stick with IPv4. Greets, Jeroen
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 depends on the ISP alone. Regards, as On 8/20/13 10:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2013-08-20 15:37 , Tayeb Meftah wrote: >> Hi guys, >> i am planing a lab to build a Recidential ISP Platform >> i have a tunneled /48 and i cut of 4 of /64 for routing use (OSPFV3) >> what's the current recomandation for recidential IPV6 assignement? > > The recommendation depends on the RIR region, but typically a /48 should > be routed to the customer. In the ARIN region it seems acceptable to use > /56's too though. > > Greets, > Jeroen >
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 2013-08-20 15:37 , Tayeb Meftah wrote: > Hi guys, > i am planing a lab to build a Recidential ISP Platform > i have a tunneled /48 and i cut of 4 of /64 for routing use (OSPFV3) > what's the current recomandation for recidential IPV6 assignement? The recommendation depends on the RIR region, but typically a /48 should be routed to the customer. In the ARIN region it seems acceptable to use /56's too though. Greets, Jeroen
IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi guys, i am planing a lab to build a Recidential ISP Platform i have a tunneled /48 and i cut of 4 of /64 for routing use (OSPFV3) what's the current recomandation for recidential IPV6 assignement? thank so Much, Tayeb Meftah Voice of the blind T Broadcast Freedom http://www.vobradio.org Phone:447559762242
