Hi Kosuke, El 18/07/2005, a las 15:12, Kosuke Ito escribió:
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:Hi, El 14/07/2005, a las 16:43, Kosuke Ito escribió:i fail to understand why this change would create swamp? could you expand on this?Do we like to creat SWAMP already?I just extend my imagination that we may be about stepping into the same mistake we made for IPv4, such as network management nightmare of managing sider space, longer prefix allocation, etc. which swell ISPs management cost. But maybe, the minimum initial allocation of /32 would not be changed, wouldn't it?
well, i guess that these are two different issues:- on one hand, the size of end-sites assigments, which seems to be one of the main focus of the discussion here (to move it from /48 to /56) - on the other hand, whether this change, would imply a change in the minimum allocation to lirs
IMHO, i am much more concerned with the first point than with the second point. I mean, i can live with the /32, but i am worried about the /48 (Besides, probably changing the /48 would also impact in the size of bigger allocations (i.e. prefix shorter than 32 bots) since now each site won't account for a /48)
Then, my SWAMP statement made before would not be the case.why would this have such impact on devices? do they have the /48 hardcoded? could you expand on this point?Regarding the assignment size, when we held JP Open Policy Meeting last week, there are many voices saying that varying assignment size is too much impact on the current commercial service not in its network operation but also for the low-cost routing devices handling /48.Many of home routers sold in Japan is designed and build to associate with an ISP's service operational scheme. Currently, a home router receiving /48 from the ISP block and assigned a /64 out of it automatically
How does the router obtains the /48? is this automatic? does it uses DHCP prefix option?
( and manually done by the user if necessary).I guess it is easier if all users get a /48 indeed, but how much effort is required to determine the proper prefix for each costumer? is there any additional operational cost that you could let us know?According to them, they have already been in service, so they consider that it is not practical to change the assignment policy.If the assignment size gets various, more overhead functionality needs to be implemented into the home router to set the appropriate assignemnt size user by user, and/or ISP needs to decide its size user by user (since the size of assignment under /48 is determined by ISPs).
AFAIU, so far the proposal is to have two prefix lengths /48 for big end sites and /56 for smaller sites. I am not sure how much more complexity this would add... I mean, automatic prefix delegation using dhcp prefix option would support this transparently.
Who pay this price?
obviously this an increased cost (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch) But quite a few bits are not wasted so, i would need very good reasons or very high costs (whatever you want to see it) not to support this proposal. I so far, i am far from convinced that the costs involved in the support of this policy are high, but i am open to be convinced otherwise
We had a discussion about IPv6 address management in the LACNIC VIII meeting in Lima (30 of june 2005) and my reading of the comments of the meeting is that they are pretty much in line with the considerations expressed by Thomas in his drafts.Is it practical to change in other regions?Thank you. How many acctual/commercial assignments have been made (or registered) in LACNIC area?
i will forward this question to lacnic people regards, marcelo
KosukeRegards, marceloI believe that we can avoid any change in the policy if we look back the goals and refrain from asking as large allocation size and large assignment size as possible just because they can. Nevertheless, if we keep the current pace of allocation, one extrapolation study said that IPv6 might be allocated 50% in 60 years in the worst(?) case. Seems to me, lasting 120 years of IPv6 is long enough, isn't it?? Kosuke JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:Hi Thomas, I totally agree with your appreciations.May be one possibility to ensure that this is going to work also with the RIRs is to hold this document until the RIRs policy changes align to it, andwork pro-actively with them in order to make that happening ASAP ? I will suggest a small change to this text (section 2): "... While that number may make sense for larger sites, it is hard to imagine a typical homeuser requiring so much space. Indeed, the default end site assignment today is in practice the same for home users and larger businesses."For something such as: "... While that number maymake sense for larger sites, it is hard to imagine, at the time being, a typical home user requiring so much space, but this can change and we must be ready and open to that. Indeed, the default end site assignment today isin practice the same for home users and large businesses.Moreover, the change in the recommended assignment (from /48 to /56) should not become a barrier for any customer to get a /48 from the ISP, whenever the ISP is required for that, with no need for further justifications forthat request."One open question is if this change will impact in the default allocation of/32 to the LIRs. I mean, should they still keep considering that thecustomers will be able to request a /48 and consequently keep allocating the big prefixes that we have seen until now ? If not, should the big prefixes already allocated be claimed back ? Yes, I know is a RIR business, but I think otherwise we clarify it ASAP, it can create a lot of unfairness in theprocess with future allocations.Moreover, it will be a good suggestion for ISPs to block the remaining /56 up to the /48 for each customer, in case he ask for it, in order to avoid renumbering ? If that's the case, there is any meaning for this changetowards the conservation ?.Note that there is already some people proposing that the business model for IPv6 is precisely charging for the addresses, which I believe is totally broken and a wrong approach. The business will come because there are new services and applications, for which the ISPs will be able to charge, eitherbecause the service itself or the BW required by the service, or acombination of both. This will not happen if the addresses aren't available for free (the applications will never come in that case, and we will end-up with a NATv6 model). Also some ISPs in AP are already providing only a /64 and charging for a different "service class" if the customer ask for severalsubnets. Regards, Jordi(note: I've copied the globa-v6 list as suggested in previous emails fromThomas)De: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:11:19 +0200 Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org> Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt Hi Jordi.I've read yesterday this document, and I'm basically ok with it, but with two considerations that I think must be worked out it parallel somehow: 1) HD-Ratio modification, as it seems to be an integral part of thediscussion.IMO, changing the HD-ratio is a no-brainer, and I suspect that manypeople feel the same way. It's an easy change to make and has minimalimpact. Indeed, there is already an ARIN proposal to do this: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_5.html So yes, I expect this will be done and will personally push to see this happen.2) I've the feeling that if we suggest the ISPs to move to a /56, they will then charge the customers (SOHO, end-users) or create to them a lot oftroubles to get a bigger prefix when this is needed.We should be careful NOT to assume that just because something is doneone way in IPv4, it will be similar in IPv6. Indeed, I think one of the big cultural changes w.r.t. IPv6 is thenotion that end sites get subnets (emphasis on plural) where this is clearly NOT the norm for IPv4 today. My sense is (from talking to folkin the RIR community) is that they all believe this, and that ISPsworking with IPv6 also get this. So I think we've already changed thestarting point here. Also, in IPv4, the existing practice is to give out a single address. There are multiple reasons for this, some cultural (i.e.,status quo). But another point that I think people sometimes forget isthat the existing protocols and busines practices have been built around giving out a single address (rather than a subnet) and such, getting a subnet is, in fact, an exception to the norm. As we know, exceptions can cost more, i.e., in terms of help desk support, etc.So even though ISPs in IPv4 do tend to charge more for "more than one address", the reasons for that are a bit subtle, and when they say its because "more address just cost more", that is really just FUD. In nocase can the case be made that it is because the extra addresses actually "cost more", i.e., in terms of RIR policies.Again, my sense in the RIR regions is that folk want the RIR policiesto be very clear that addresses should be available to end sites at very low cost (i.e., essentially free), and that the cost of a /48should be the same as a /56 or /64. And with DHCPv6 prefix delegation (as the protocol/operational mechanism for achieving this) I think weare on track to see the right thing happen. To ensure that happens, the RIR policies will need to be sure that when LIRs need more space from RIRs, the justification should bebased entirely on whether the existing space is sufficiently utilized (based on the HD-ratio) with the metric being completely neutral as towhether end sites are getting /48s or /56s.My feeling is that today we believe that 8 bits for subnetting isenough, but I think will not be the case soon and this barrier willthen be again a stopper for enabling innovation.I think there is a general feeling in the RIR community that folksthat ask for more than a /56 should generally get it more-or-less byasking. I'd welcome help in how to word this. What we don't want is folk automatically asking for a /48 "just because they can". In practice, a /56 will really be enough for a large percentage of endsites, for a long while. Hence, the current "justification" for spaceis probably best expressed in terms of size of a site in terms of subnets. That is something objectively measurable and captures the sense of whether additional space is really needed.I know this one is somehow not an IETF business, but we must beworried about that and may be collectively work for the appropriatesolution in the appropriate fora.We simply need to pay attention to what is going on in the RIRcommunity, and followup as appropriate. The good news is that my ownsense (from going to ARIN meetings for 3 years or so, and attendingthe last RIPE meeting) is that the community there largely shares thesame goals as I'm hearing here. They do understand that IPv6 is different than IPv4 and that we need to focus less on conservationthan IPv4. I think that most of the community is actually quite happyabout this.The cost of managing addresses is not a recurrent cost. I mean, it will be ok to charge for a reasonable setup fee if somebody ask for a /48 instead of a /56, but charging 12Euros (or even more) per month per address as sometelcos do in EU is a crime.No. I think there is no justification (in increased $$) for a /48 vs. a /56. The RIR policies should be clear about that. That won't prevent ISPs from (perhaps) doing this, but they will use weakerarguments like "a /48 implies more traffic and therefore more $$". But then again maybe not. In practice, with a /56, end sites can generateplenty of traffic and ISP charges may end up having to switch to something based on actual traffice being carried. Thomas------------------------------------------------------------------- -IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.orgAdministrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -************************************ The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.comThis 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.-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.v6pc.jp/ Lifetime e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.v6pc.jp/ Lifetime e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
