[address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marcin Kuczera
marcin at leon.pl
Sun May 1 22:59:57 CEST 2011
Martin Millnert wrote: > Marcin, > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Marcin Kuczera <marcin at leon.pl> wrote: >> hello, >> >> Is it possible to discuss ability of getting second IPv6 PA allocation as a >> LIR without filling first one ? > > See below. > >> The reason for such a need is a change of IPv6 PI rules, it is no longer >> possible to use IPv6 PI as ISP (/128 for subscibers). >> So, solution is that LIR segment /32 into smaller units an assigning them to >> their SponsorLIR agreement customers. >> >> However, first /32 IPv6 allocation is in our case advertized as whole by our >> AS13000. Once some internal policy for suballocations is used, this prefix >> can not be divided into smaller prefixes. > > I doubt this is correct. You mentioned that you had not filled the > /32. In other words, there should be /48s left over unallocated > internally. > > These /48s can be (sub-)allocated to customers (please forgive my > flawed internet-numbers-delegation-vocabulary), who are free to > announce them over BGP sessions. Indeed, however there is one "little" issue. /32 is already advertised @AS13000 as whole. So there are 2 possibilities: - add paralel route objects, but then MNT-LOWER must be added and all related inter-ISP communiaction problems. - not adverising /32 @ AS13000, adverising only prefixes in use. Both cases I would like to avoid. So, I would prefer to have /32 for own purposes, eventually customers who buy Internet from us, and other, who are just SponsorLIR customers. > Presumably, the more ISPs that sign up for this Internet tax (the LIR > membership fees), the lower it will become (#LIRs is most definitely > sub-linearly proportional to the RIPE NCC:s operational costs). It is > fairly obvious to me that this attempt to (at least partially) solve a > *perceived* network model problem with taxes is not long-term stable > in itself.* You can't use this argument for people who earn around 500-1000 euro per month with their business... Post comunistic block is much different than old EU, and most people from old EU do not realize that... Marcin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]