Re: [sig-policy] DB registration requirement (Final call for comments: p
Sanjaya wrote:
> Kosuke Ito wrote:
>
>>>>>> + What would be the minimum registration requirements per endsite?
>>>>>> A suggestion JPNIC has is to allow all dynamic assignments and /64s to
>>>>>> be aggregated as LIR's infrastructure, but require all other
>>>>>> assignments per endsite, to be consistent with v4.
>>>>> Would there be any particular motivation to deviate from a practice that
>>>>> is consistent with Ipv4? (I can't think of any at this stage.)
>>>> The reason I can think of is the overall size of the IPv6 space. If people
>>>> starts registering /64s and smaller assignments to the NIR/RIR, our disk storage
>>>> will fill up rather quickly and the utilization calculation will take longer.
>>>> I'm not saying this can't be done.
>>>>
>>>> Considering that the registration requirement primary reason is to measure
>>>> utilization, how about aggregating the assignment report to whatever size the HD
>>>> ratio calculation is based on? And can we confirm that it is now based on /56?
>>>>
>>> I understand the registration requirement as for clarifying who is in
>>> responsible of the address space as well as for calculating utilization.
>>> Assuming this is the case, wouldn't it blur who is responsible for the
>>> address space if we allow aggregation in /56?
>> I agree.
>> There is no technical reason to say which size.
>> It is the matter of balancing between how precisely RIR/NIR need
>> to know the utilization of allocated address space and how easy
>> each LIR report/register it with the reasonably low overhead.
>>
>> Kosuke
>
> Good points Izumi and Kosuke. Other than potential disk space and calculation
> issues (not an insurmountable issue whatsoever), I have no objections to either
> use the current IPv4 registration requirement or amend it to encourage/require
> aggregation at the infrastructure level.
>
Thanks Sanjaya.
Just to clarify our intention a little more, JPNIC suggested that ISPs
can aggregate /64s as their infrastructures as they can be considered as
router interface address(just like /30s in IPv4).
We don't see reasons for other sizes to be aggregated at this stage, but
interested to hear other opinions as well.
Izumi