[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] RE: Wg-ipv6-guide digest, Vol 1 #10 - 1 msg
Hi Izumi, and all,
> > 5.3. LIR-to-ISP allocation
> >
> > There is no specific policy for an organization (LIR) to allocate
> > address space to subordinate ISPs. Each LIR organization may develop
> > its own policy for subordinate ISPs to encourage optimum utilization
> > of the total address block allocated to the LIR.
Above is the current IPv6 policy. Do you think that this mean that LIR
does not need to submit SOR to APNIC even when they sub-allocate
greater than /48 block to downstream ISP?
This may affect other clause like "8. Second opinion requests " or
"8.1.1 Sub-Allocations".
I would like to know original intention of the policy.
Best regards,
Toshi
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] RE: Wg-ipv6-guide digest, Vol 1 #10 - 1 msg
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:32:30 +0900
> Hi Fujisaki-san and all,
>
> > | Do you mean that sub-allocations made to downstream ISPs are
> > | considered as utilized, i.e, if a /40(256*/48) is allocated to a
> > | downstream ISP, then 256*/48 is considered utilized?
> > |
> > | I am aware that this is the case in IPv4 policy but wasn't sure if the
> > | same policy applies to IPv6. I assumed it doesn't, but not too
> > | confident about my interpretation, so I would like to hear the
> > | comments from the others.
> >
> > I think you mention this part of IPv6 policy document.
> Yes, that's right.
>
> > ----------8<----------8=----------8<----------8=----------8<----------
> > 5.3. LIR-to-ISP allocation
> >
> > There is no specific policy for an organization (LIR) to allocate
> > address space to subordinate ISPs. Each LIR organization may develop
> > its own policy for subordinate ISPs to encourage optimum utilization
> > of the total address block allocated to the LIR.
> >
> > However, all /48 assignments to end sites are required to be
> > registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs in such a way
> > that the RIR/NIR can properly evaluate the HD-Ratio when a subsequent
> > allocation becomes necessary.
> > ----------8<----------8=----------8<----------8=----------8<----------
> >
> > My interpretation is same as yours (bellow).
> >
> > | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > | - If a sub-allocation is made to a down stream ISP, but not
> > | assignments are registered in the database, it will not considered
> > | utilized
> > | e.g.) /40 sub-allocation is made to a downstream ISP. 2*/48 is
> > | assigned from this block. In this case, 2*/48 is considered
> > | as utilized, not /40(256*/48).
> > | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> OK, thanks for your comment.
> Any opinions from the others?
>
> > | In anycase, whichever the interpretation is, I think it is worth
> > | noting it in the document since it is quite confusing.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I think it's helpful to describe clearly as 'this is [same
> > as/different from IPv4]'.
> >
> > And if Okutani-san's interpretation is correct, it's better to add the
> > comment that 'So, LIRs should carefully consider and justify the
> > sub-allocation size'. I'm not sure this kind of notification should
> > be written or not in guidelines document.
> I think it's a good idea to include it as an advice.
>
> >
> > This is Okutani-san's previous mail:
> >
> > | Also, this should probably go into the initial allocation section, but
> > | let me comment on one point which came up to my mind.
> > |
> > | It may be worth noting that at the time of the initial allocation
> > | request, sub-allocations to downstream ISPs are taken into account as
> > | "to be assigned /48".
> >
> > Does this mean at the initial allocation request, ISPs can take into
> > account the number of users in down stream ISPs?
> This is just my personal interpretation, but this is how I understand
> the policy.
>
> At the time of the initial allocation request, LIRs do not need to be
> concious if the number of assignments planned through its downstream
> ISP. They simply need to worry about the size of sub-allocations to
> the downtream.
>
> Therefore, when an LIR states a plan in its allocation request that
> they will sub-allocate /40 to a downstream ISP, then it is considered
> as an equivalent of the LIR having a plan to assign 256*/48 to
> sites/POPs.
>
> The RIR/NIR will not check the details of the assignment plan of the
> downstream ISP at the time of the initial allocation request.
>
> However, if an LIR sub-allocates an unrealistic size to its
> downstream, they will not be able to meet the utilization rate at the
> subsequent allocation since it will be judged based on the number of
> /48 registrations, not the size of sub-allocations to the downstream
> ISP.
>
> Initial allocation request:
> /44 sub-allocation
> -->can be considered as the equivalent of 16 * /48
> -->no need to provide the details of /44 sub-allocation
>
> Subsequent allocation request:
> /44 sub-allocation, but no /48 assignments registered in registry database
> --> not considered as utilized(0 * /48 assignment)
>
> I hope I succeeded in clarifying the difference, but please let me
> know if further explanation is needed.
>
> Feedbacks are also welcome!
>
>
> Izumi
> JPNIC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wg-ipv6-guide mailing list
> Wg-ipv6-guide@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-ipv6-guide
>
