[apnic-talk] Re: IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT (3rd dra
Hello everyone,
I forwarded the following comments re the IPv6 assignment and allocation
policy document to the IPv6 Working Group at RIPE. I'm forwarding here for
information and further discussion from the AP region.
"
Some comments on the IPv6 policy draft document and the IAB comments.
Hopefully these can be considered by the registries for the next revision.
I decided not to take the document and analyse sections of it; rather I
think we should collectively step back and look at the problem we are
trying to address (no pun intended).
What the document does not cover sufficiently:
- Internet Exchange Points
- newcomers to the IPv6 transit service
- what is meant by a "customer"
- what is meant by "transit"
It is my understanding that the address design of IPv6 intended a subTLA
(and later, a TLA) to be allocated to transit providers only, not leaf
providers. The document doesn't declare this. A transit provider is a
service provider who accepts routing information from a customer AS or peer
AS, into his AS, and then announces that routing information to another
customer AS or peer AS. Those of us who configure routers and run ISP
backbones use this definition. It is my opinion that these service
providers are the ones who qualify for subTLAs.
"customers" are service providers who connect to transit providers as
defined above. Service providers could be enterprise networks who have
their own AS appearing in the Internet routing table for multihoming or
management purposes. They could be ISPs as we know them in the commercial
world, or they could be educational establishments; all have their own AS.
These "customers" would be the organisations I'd envisage qualifying for
NLA address space. These "customers" would assign address space to the end
users.
Using these definitions, look at the numbers. How many transit providers
have 100 customers in the relationship as defined above. Well, a straw poll
on the routing table shows very very few. 100 is too big, and I agree with
the IAB that 10 may be a more realistic number.
Secondly, IXPs. These are not mentioned, but I think we need separate
paragraphs to cover IXPs. I'd suggest that an IXP would qualify for a
subTLA provided they have a public document showing a memorandum of
understanding, or a signed agreement, that the peering relationship between
service providers at that location forms an IXP. Maybe a minimum of 10
service providers could realistically qualify such an operation as an IXP.
Same barrier to entry as "transit" providers. 100 is definitely too high.
Newcomers. Work needed here, and probably the most difficult one to
properly define. Some businesses may wish to only offer IPv6 transit
services. If they can show business relationships to provide transit
services (defined above) to "customers" defined above, they should qualify
for a subTLA. (By "relationships" I mean signed contracts or commitments
from potential customers to "buy" transit services.) Build in safeguards re
deployment etc, but allow for up to 2 years. We aren't switching IPv4 off
one day, and IPv6 on the next.
Now to a reality check. Using my definitions above, I analysed the current
IPv4 Internet routing table. It makes interesting reading!
- There are 4619 ASes originating networks in the Internet routing table
today, 5th March.
- There are 1608 ASes providing transit services in the Internet today.
This is the number of providers who are providing connectivity to ASes
originating networks.
Rather than constructing complex rules about allocation to existing
providers, we have the solution above. 1608 ASes are providing IPv4 transit
services, so 1608 ASes qualify for subTLA space. Give it to them now, and
they have two years to do something with it. If they don't do anything with
it, revoke it.
Second, the ASes which are originating networks are the service providers
who will receive NLA address space from the subTLA holders. Some
originating ASes will be transit providers too, but then this is why the
hierarchy has been built into the address scheme...
Wasting address space? I think not. 1608 transit ASes is 1608 of 8192
possible subTLAs. 1608 routes in the IPv6 routing table is tiny compared
with the potential 16384 defined by RFC2450 in FP 001 IPv6 space. We'll
need significant growth of the Internet to use all 8192 subTLAs. Yes, that
is a huge amount of address space relative to the IPv4 Internet, but it is
still only one of 8192 TLAs in one eighth of the total IPv6 address space.
People "dusting off" ASes in their back pocket? Well, you need to do a lot
of dusting off to become a transit service provider, especially if you have
to show that you are providing transit to at least 10 other ASes. No danger
there, provided "transit" is defined.
People rushing to get ASes so they can get a subTLA? Well, same applies.
You need to provide transit service. If newcomers sign business agreements
or contracts with 10 other ASes (same barrier as existing service
providers), then they too should qualify. And remember, the registries
don't assign ASes unless you are multihoming between different ISPs.
I hope this is useful and can act as a reality check - I hope we introduce
a system whereby service providers from all parts of the industry and the
world are encouraged to deploy IPv6. The document in its current form is an
excellent first step at tackling the issue but I hope it can be enhanced to
encourage further development and deployment of IPv6.
best wishes!
philip
--
Philip F Smith || ||
Consulting Engineering, Office of the CTO, || ||
Cisco Systems Inc, #13/80 Albert St, |||| ||||
Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
Tel: +61 7 3238 8802, Mobile: +61 418 258376 c i s c o S y s t e m s
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *