Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
Hi, 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. One option is to get 8 freifunk communities together, start one LIR between them, get a /29 from RIPE NCC and then let each community use a /32 from that. I have a personal LIR that 'donated' a /32 to a community in such a way and it works fine. The deaggregation from /29 to /32 is not great, but not something that causes much trouble in the DFZ. Cheers, Sander
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
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. 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. 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. 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.
Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
One fix: Not inetnum and route but inet6num and route6. 19.06.2015, 15:23, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net: Another way: 1) Create inetnum with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of inetnum allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; 2) Create route object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; 3) Announce your prefix; Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED inetnum inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inetnum. 19.06.2015, 15:15, Christopher Kunz chrisl...@de-punkt.de: Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: Hello! Why wouldn't they become a LIR? 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. As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. --ck -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
Hello! Why wouldn't they become a LIR? 19.06.2015, 15:03, Thomas Drewermann tho...@freifunk-rheinland.net: 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. 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. 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. 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. -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: Hello! Why wouldn't they become a LIR? 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. As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. --ck
Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
Another way: 1) Create inetnum with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of inetnum allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; 2) Create route object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; 3) Announce your prefix; Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED inetnum inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inetnum. 19.06.2015, 15:15, Christopher Kunz chrisl...@de-punkt.de: Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: Hello! Why wouldn't they become a LIR? 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. As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. --ck -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
Hi Vladimir, in that manner they would not be independent from us as organization. If anything happens to us they would lose their subnet which has been allocated by us. I forgot one tought in my first mail. To be particular about the policy in my opinion guest networks provided by PI assigment holders e.g. companies aren't legitimate use either. Because addresses are leased to users/devices which don't belong the company holding the PI assignment. That addresses could be treated as assignments to third parties as well. Regards Thomas Am 19.06.2015 14:24, schrieb Vladimir Andreev: One fix: Not inetnum and route but inet6num and route6. 19.06.2015, 15:23, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net: Another way: 1) Create inetnum with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of inetnum allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; 2) Create route object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; 3) Announce your prefix; Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED inetnum inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inetnum. 19.06.2015, 15:15, Christopher Kunz chrisl...@de-punkt.de: Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: Hello! Why wouldn't they become a LIR? 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. As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. --ck -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy
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
