Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing

  • To: jordi.palet at consulintel dot es
  • Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
  • From: Aaron Kaplan <aaron at lo-res dot org>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:46:27 +0100
  • Cc: ipv6 at ietf dot org, global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net, Christopher Martin <outsidefactor at iinet dot net dot au>
  • In-reply-to: <C003C958.155AD9%jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: Discussion of new global IPv6 policy development <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <>
      Let me maybe try to clarify Christopher Martin's point a bit.
      I recently went through a similar situation and fortunately our community network achieved AS status. We are a meshed wireless network in Vienna, Austria ( BUT we would not have been able to do it without some help / intervention of a friendly ISP. The barriers have in practice become to big for community projects to become part of the regular internet.
      One of the forerunners of the wireless community networks - - therefore just took some reserved IP space : 104.x.x.x . Sad.
      In my humble opinion it makes absolutely no sense hoard IPv6 space and an AS number. These young networking fellows are actually reinventing the way we think about the subject. It would be much more interesting to give some IP space (hey wasn't it all about having enough IP space?) to a very interesting experiment. Reality will decide anyway if the community wireless net is technically and socially feasible or no (so far it is in many different countries :) And no - it is not competition. Because a client will want to buy some kind of SLA - that is something that he/she will not be able to buy with wireless networks. Especially not in an ISM band.
      Please keep in mind what Van Jacobson et al recently said:
         So if we want to think about where networking might be in 10 or
         15 years, it behooves us to look at (r)evolution at the edge. [1]
      Christopher: Just make realities! They will like it anyway, once they understood it.
      best regards,
      Aaron Kaplan. - mobile meshnetworking in Vienna
      PS: yes i know, it was about IPv6 space in the first place, but it is the same thing. Established organizations don't want young experimenters/i.e. they make things prohibitively expensive. And yes, Christopher, IMHO it probably makes sense to first get v4 working anyway, because every windows comp errr sorry every windows user only knows v4. And you need users in the beginning so that the mesh becomes dense.
      "Making the World (of Communications) a Different Place",
      David D. Clark, Craig Partridge, Robert T. Braden, Bruce Davie, Sally Floyd, Van Jacobson, Dina Katabi, Greg Minshall, K.K. Ramakrishnan, Timothy Roscoe,
      Ion Stoica, John Wroclawski and Lixia Zhang
      On Jan 30, 2006, at 1:47 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
      Hi Chris,
      See below, in-line.
      De: Christopher Martin <outsidefactor at iinet dot net dot au>
      Responder a: <ipv6-bounces at ietf dot org>
      Fecha: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:22:34 +1100
      Para: <global-v6 at apnic dot net>
      CC: "ipv6 at ietf dot org" <ipv6 at ietf dot org>
      Asunto: RE: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen at unfix dot org]
      Sent: Monday, 30 January 2006 10:56 PM
      To: Christopher Martin
      Cc: ipv6 at ietf dot org; global-v6 at apnic dot net
      Subject: Re: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
      The certainly do have options for IPv6 only. See:
      Which means small: $2500 US which translates to $3750 AU.
      Those membership levels assume much larger allocations than we require. It would be remiss of us to use our limited resources to acquire assets which we could only hope to use a tiny portion of. We need a modest, portable
      Remember that the minimum prefix for IPv6 is /32.
      What would be unfair is if a "non-profit" organization could get a
      'cheaper' prefix than a commercial organization. Especially because you are in direct competition with them. That your business model doesn't
      give you enough funding doesn't mean that would become an option.
      Then again politics on this planet seem to like those kind of constructs.
      Actually, there is no case of direct competition as the network:
      * Won't provide any IPv4 access to the internet
      I'm not sure to understand then how your users will use email and other services, which aren't yet available with IPv6 worldwide. Same for lots of web sites, which are only available with IPv4. Unless you have plans for
      doing some proxying ?
      * Won't provide any 6-to-4 translation/bridging to the internet
      6to4 is not a translation, is an automatic tunneling mechanism.
      * Won't offer any guaranteed quality of service
      For those who can afford a form of broadband it will be a supplemental service, while those who can't can still act as a peer on at least some form
      of network.
      As a side note, the ISP industry worldwide is marching all over the original model of the internet, that being a peer-to-peer network, by forcing DHCP
      addressing on permanent services like cable and ADSL.
      Not all, some realized already that this is not longer good even for them
      "Pricing" is globally mostly the same btw.
      Is there address space made available for research purposes, or is there
      space set aside for not-for-profit use?
      Your best bet is to contact AARNet (, they are
      in Australia for research and education and already provide IPv6
      connectivity. They might be able to help you out.
      We have approached AARNet, however they require a peering agreement to be in
      place, but the requirements are a very steep hill to climb, needing
      multi-megabit links in each state, which presupposes the existence of a
      There is also at least one project which has received their own IPv6
      allocation and is also non-profit. Maybe OCCAID (http://
      can help you out.
      Thanks, I will approach them.
      Not sure if this is case for OCCAID, as the idea here is not to provide addressing space, but transit for those that can't get good quality transit
      from your own upstreams, which seems not to be your case ?
      Thirdly there is an "Experimental IPv6 Allocation" policy:
      Again, thanks for the info.
      This is oriented to experiments, not really services. If it is a trial
      service, may work.
      BTW: 6bone is dead per 6/6/6.
      We are aware, and the ISPs in question are looking at connecting to Telstra,
      Optus and NTT's v6 trial networks.
      They should be no longer trials !
      Thanks for you replies.
      IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
      ipv6 at ietf dot org
      Administrative Requests:
      The IPv6 Portal:
      Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
      Slides available at:
      This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
      global-v6 mailing list
      global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net