Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I >may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment. >However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I >do now?
This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to portable assignment policy).
Does it?
Unless I am reading the wrong document, the proposal adds the following OR condition to the existing 200 assignments requirement:
"OR;
- Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have a plan for making assignments and/or sub-allocations to other organizations within two years."
The way I read the above is the LIR must still make IPv6 assignments and/or sub-allocations.
I guess another way of reading it is that the LIR must plan to make IPv4 assignments, but what is that condition doing in an IPv6 document?
If this proposal is adopted, would anyone like to take a wager on how long it will take before another proposal is put forward, claiming that the above discriminates in favour of existing ISPs to the detriment of new players in the market.
Is there really a problem here that we are fixing, or are we just arguing over semantics?
Cheers, Tim.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail

On 26/01/2008, at 1:16 PM, Tim Jones wrote:
Is there really a problem here that we are fixing, or are we just arguing over semantics?
The latter, I believe.
APNIC staff - how many organisations have been denied v6 space under the current proposal?
Cheers, Jonny.

APNIC staff - how many organisations have been denied v6 space under the current proposal?
becaus eof the 200 limit

On 26/1/08 01:35, "Jonny Martin" jonny@jonnynet.net wrote:
Is there really a problem here that we are fixing, or are we just arguing over semantics?
The latter, I believe.
APNIC staff - how many organisations have been denied v6 space under the current proposal?
More importantly, how many have not requested IPv6 space because they misunderstood the text to mean that they would not qualify? The proposal text states that "Some JPNIC members have pointed out that having a fixed number of planned assignments in this criteria makes it feel like an obligation that must be met."
I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to know whether there is considerable pent-up demand that would be released with a wording tweak. Input from JPNIC staff on this point would be helpful.
Regards,
Leo

I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to know whether there is considerable pent-up demand that would be released with a wording tweak.
<rant>
i love the tradition of speaking for those not present. one can claim anything! personally, i know that, if we painted the prefixes cerulean blue, that 2,319 more users would deploy ipv6.
but looking at actual measurements, e.g. foil 3 of the study of actual announcement, http://rip.psg.com/~randy/071022.v6-use.pdf, we see that allocations of ipv6 space within the apnic region continues on a steep curve. this would hint that the barrier to *allocation* is negligible.
on the other hand, on that same foil, note that actual bgp announcement, i.e. *use* of ipv6 allocations has been flat. i.e. people get the space and do not use it. this should give us a very big clue.
at best, removing the 200 limit will allow a few hoarders to pick up ipv6 space cheap which we will later complain about just as we complain about legacy ipv4 holders today. cheap thrills.
so sitting here tweaking some trivial words is a lazy and useless path. as is spinning fantasies about ipv6 saving battery life.
what is needed is to make ipv6 *usable* for the isps' customers. this is not so easy. i know as i have been putting some effort into it.
one is just documenting getting some servers and services converted. i have been keeping notes at http://rip.psg.com/~randy/ipv6-westin.html. i solicit and would appreciate further contributions and collection of clue.
second is planning an educational experiment at nanog, apricot, ietf, ripe, ... where ipv4 transit is shut off for an hour or so, and we show that pure ipv6 does not really work, what different ipv6 crutches are needed to actually deploy at an enterprise-like end site, and how to deploy those crutches so isps can do this for their customers. see the working notes at http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf/wiki/NANOG%20IPv6%20Hour%20-%20February%202008#NANOGIPv6Hour-February2008. again, contributions and clue would be appreciated. the engineering design team for this will actually be meeting monday in the bay area.
randy

On 26/01/2008 02:33, "Randy Bush" randy@psg.com wrote:
I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to know whether there is considerable pent-up demand that would be released with a wording tweak.
<rant>
i love the tradition of speaking for those not present. one can claim anything!
Presumably, there is some evidence supporting the claim made in the proposal and the authors are speaking at their request. Maybe the authors can speak up and explain the situation?
[...]
at best, removing the 200 limit will allow a few hoarders to pick up ipv6 space cheap which we will later complain about just as we complain about legacy ipv4 holders today. cheap thrills.
If IPv6 turns out to be damp squib then it makes no difference how much IPv6 address space anyone has. It will be irrelevant. On the other hand, if the deployment problems are solved then the networks with the space will need to use it rather than hoard it.
so sitting here tweaking some trivial words is a lazy and useless path.
Yes, if the authors can't demonstrate the need they claim exists.
Regards,
Leo
Activity Summary
- 5785 days inactive
- 5785 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 5 comments