Hi Jordi, Jeroen, Gert, Thanks for the answers. OK, It looks like not a legal problem. Is it any problem for RIRs if this behavior would proliferate? (many Carriers would cut something from FC/8)
It is exactly what is going on now. A few HUGE Carriers already accepted this approach and one big vendor continues the push of other Carriers. APNIC has refused in yet additional /28 specifically for this technical solution to these HUGE Carriers. I am not enough proficient to say: did they request properly? I have been told that /28 just for infrastructure is to-o-o much. Of course, these carriers have bigger blocks for real subscribers. And what is worse, these Carriers have smaller blocks for infrastructure that has been given by APNIC before. It is like "the second block for the same purpose" from APNIC's point of view. I am not so sure that it is easy to get. I did expect that some would ask why. I did try to address these. You are still surprised. OK. Let me say more. It is uSID SRv6 solution. It needs a short prefix for the infrastructure because the prefix is replicated in every entry of the SRH list. Or else it would cost a few percentages of the whole network bandwidth. i.e., it may burn a few percentages of overall network investments of the big carrier. FYI, uSID is the 1st solution (section 4.1) in the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-00 Eduard -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar via ipv6-wg Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 6:48 PM To: Gert Doering <g...@space.net> Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Hijacking unused address space for a private infrastructure - any legal consequences? > On 20220224, at 16:26, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 04:08:45PM +0100, Jeroen Massar via ipv6-wg wrote: >>> People could ask "why not GUA"? The answer is: it is difficult to get yet >>> another /28 GUA from RIR just for the infrastructure. >>> /28 goal has the technical roots by itself. It is the sort of technical >>> solution. >> >> RIR typically give out the space that one really needs. >> >> If you can justify it, you will get it. >> >> If you cannot justify it, you likely do not need it. >> >> As a LIR can get a IPv6 /29 per default (and then likely never have to ask >> again).... I would be very surprised if one is a large entity that one >> cannot receive an extra /28. > > If I hear "/28 just for the infrastructure" I'd claim "they are doing > something wrong, in significant ways". > > No network is so big that a /32 wouldn't be enough *for the > infrastructure* > (4 billion /64 subnets), unless you start encoding stuff into network > prefixes that should not be there. > > And no, people should not get /28s for (pure) "network numbers are hard" > reasons. Full ack on that. Hence why I mentioned "if you can justify it" :) Greets, Jeroen -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
